From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5066 invoked by alias); 15 Sep 2004 16:11:47 -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 5045 invoked from network); 15 Sep 2004 16:11:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 15 Sep 2004 16:11:42 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i8FGBb32003782 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 12:11:37 -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 i8FGBVr04315; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 12:11:31 -0400 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFD0A28D2; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 12:09:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4148692E.3000304@gnu.org> Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 16:11:00 -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: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Eliminate TARGET_HAS_HARDWARE_WATCHPOINTS References: <413C6E8E.6030607@gnu.org> <01c49441$Blat.v2.2.2$ead61420@zahav.net.il> <413E25F6.7020908@gnu.org> <01c49557$Blat.v2.2.2$23f700a0@zahav.net.il> <413F170A.2070005@gnu.org> <01c495b7$Blat.v2.2.2$1f83c660@zahav.net.il> <20040908152315.GA28927@nevyn.them.org> <01c4961e$Blat.v2.2.2$d00fd3e0@zahav.net.il> <20040909035336.GA30215@nevyn.them.org> <01c49621$Blat.v2.2.2$eb2d05a0@zahav.net.il> <20040909124755.GA8559@nevyn.them.org> <01c4969e$Blat.v2.2.2$0e5a13c0@zahav.net.il> <414479DB.4090207@gnu.org> <01c498f8$Blat.v2.2.2$2c6144e0@zahav.net.il> <4145AE6F.6070005@gnu.org> <01c499c9$Blat.v2.2.2$deebfb60@zahav.net.il> <4146070D.3040104@gnu.org> <01c49af4$Blat.v2.2.2$56b4be40@zahav.net.il> In-Reply-To: <01c49af4$Blat.v2.2.2$56b4be40@zahav.net.il> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00253.txt.bz2 >>> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:46:05 -0400 >>> From: Andrew Cagney >>> Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com >>> >> >>>> > Great! So you've gone out and committed a patch over an objection of >>>> > a core maintainer who worked quite a bit on the releated code. >> >>> >>> No. The changes that in anyway formalize the deprecation of all this: >>> [...] >>> and that you have so stridently objected to, are still all sitting on >>> the table. > > > That doesn't matter: you still did something unilaterally instead of > first asking if that is okay with me and others. Can you please provide a technical objection for the patch I committed. None, that were not resolved, were identified during this discussion. > No matter how much you are annoyed by failing to get an agreement, it > doesn't mean you should do things unilaterally. There's nothing > wrong, in principle, in the fact that I object to something ``so > stridently''; others, yourself included, are known to use the same > practices on many occasions. AFIR, no one has as yet committed a > patch over your objections in such a situation. I request that you do > the same here and in similar cases in the future. I've posted my fair share of "whatever"s. Andrew