From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8639 invoked by alias); 14 Dec 2012 15:17:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 8629 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Dec 2012 15:17:30 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS 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; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:17:23 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qBEFHNNO002517 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 10:17:23 -0500 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qBEFHMwU007821 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 14 Dec 2012 10:17:22 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: Sergio Durigan Junior , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: implement 'info proc mappings' for core files References: <87y5ijoniv.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <871ug8nnqw.fsf__31325.5512774505$1352124723$gmane$org@fleche.redhat.com> <877gpzloii.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <87zk2cm44y.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20121203092943.GA21145@host2.jankratochvil.net> <8738znxd1g.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:17:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <8738znxd1g.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> (Tom Tromey's message of "Mon, 03 Dec 2012 10:26:19 -0700") Message-ID: <87txro1x4t.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2.90 (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: 2012-12/txt/msg00506.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Tom" == Tom Tromey writes: Tom> I replaced it with a static assert. Tom> I think this version addresses all your comments. I'm checking this in now. Tom