Accidentally dropped gdb-patches from the recipients.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jim Blandy <jimb@red-bean.com>
Date: Nov 15, 2005 10:23 PM
Subject: Re: RFA: GDB manual: clarify lack of restrictions on 'm' packets
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>


On 11/15/05, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> > Some possibilities:
> >
> > @cindex alignment of remote memory accesses
> > @cindex size of remote memory accesses
> > @cindex memory, alignment and size of remote accesses
> > @cindex memory-mapped input/output and remote protocol
> > @cindex input/output, memory-mapped and remote protocol
> >
> > I could go on like that, but it feel like overkill.  What do you think?
>
> #1 and #3 will do, I think.

For memory-mapped I/O, both alignment and size matter; I don't think
there's a sense in which one is more relevant to the question than the
other.  So I've committed 1-3; patch attached.  I'm happy to change it
if you disagree, of course.

2005-11-15  Jim Blandy  <jimb@redhat.com>

        * gdb.texinfo (Packets): Add index entries for 'm' packet
        disclaimers.