From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14874 invoked by alias); 1 Sep 2004 15:15:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 14754 invoked from network); 1 Sep 2004 15:14:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 1 Sep 2004 15:14:55 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i81FEsS2027562 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 2004 11:14:55 -0400 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (porkchop.devel.redhat.com [172.16.58.2]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i81FEn319328; Wed, 1 Sep 2004 11:14:49 -0400 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4839D28D2; Wed, 1 Sep 2004 11:13:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4135E722.2030401@gnu.org> Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 15:15:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040831 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Jeff Johnston , drow@false.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA]: Fix for pending breakpoints in manually loaded/unloaded shlibs References: <41191D71.60204@redhat.com> <20040811171203.GA4152@nevyn.them.org> <411A7D97.50104@redhat.com> <20040818135621.GA26257@nevyn.them.org> <4123AC6E.8000300@redhat.com> <20040818193952.GA27639@nevyn.them.org> <4123B62C.6060703@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00010.txt.bz2 >>> Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 16:03:56 -0400 >>> From: Jeff Johnston >>> >>> Eli, in light of what Daniel and Andrew have said regarding the value >>> of having an observer, may I repost with changes and check the code in? > > > I'm still unconvinced, but I won't veto it. Jeff, the observer and use can be committed. Eli, I'm not sure what you're looking for here: > I'd like to see at least a couple more cases like this before I agree > that a generalization is in order. can you expand a little? Andrew