From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15653 invoked by alias); 13 Aug 2012 19:44:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 15644 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Aug 2012 19:44:13 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 19:44:00 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q7DJhxEb022347 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:43:59 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q7DJhvWG022606 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:43:58 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: fix PR 14386 References: <873946woli.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <87txwfj0gk.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20120813181700.GA2742@adacore.com> Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 19:44:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20120813181700.GA2742@adacore.com> (Joel Brobecker's message of "Mon, 13 Aug 2012 11:17:00 -0700") Message-ID: <87lihi60hu.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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 X-SW-Source: 2012-08/txt/msg00375.txt.bz2 Joel> If it is deemed extra safe, and useful, I don't see a problem. Joel> But I am fine either way. I think it is safe, but I think people other than me ought to say so. Tom