From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2962 invoked by alias); 16 May 2013 06:08:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 2953 invoked by uid 89); 16 May 2013 06:08:08 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.1 Received: from mtaout23.012.net.il (HELO mtaout23.012.net.il) (80.179.55.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 May 2013 06:08:06 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MMV00700NLEMD00@a-mtaout23.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Thu, 16 May 2013 09:08:04 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MMV007O4NPFMI00@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Thu, 16 May 2013 09:08:04 +0300 (IDT) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 06:08:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] range stepping: gdb In-reply-to: <5193D1FE.9070804@redhat.com> To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83sj1n4fum.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20130514191026.13213.39574.stgit@brno.lan> <20130514191047.13213.8476.stgit@brno.lan> <83k3n173ao.fsf@gnu.org> <5193621C.50603@redhat.com> <83ppws5w00.fsf@gnu.org> <519381E9.3020007@redhat.com> <83bo8c5pb7.fsf@gnu.org> <5193948A.9090609@redhat.com> <5193D1FE.9070804@redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2013-05/txt/msg00571.txt.bz2 > Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 19:20:46 +0100 > From: Pedro Alves > CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > What do you think of this? I think it's a really good and clear description. > I'm okay with removing the whole second paragraph ("If the range is > empty...") if you think the first paragraph is already clear enough. The first paragraph is clear enough, but I find the second paragraph reassuring me in that the interpretation of the first was correct. So I think it is better to leave both. Thanks.