From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20751 invoked by alias); 9 Feb 2007 19:44:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 20743 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Feb 2007 19:44:53 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from tamu-relay.tamu.edu (HELO tr-2-int.cis.tamu.edu) (165.91.22.121) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 09 Feb 2007 19:44:46 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.tamu.edu [127.0.0.1]) by tr-2-int.cis.tamu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD932182E8 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2007 13:44:36 -0600 (CST) Received: from postal.cs.tamu.edu (mailhost.cs.tamu.edu [128.194.138.100]) by tr-2-int.cis.tamu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EB191837C; Fri, 9 Feb 2007 13:44:11 -0600 (CST) Received: from sun (sun.cs.tamu.edu [128.194.138.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by postal.cs.tamu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ACE146DE01; Fri, 9 Feb 2007 13:44:11 -0600 (CST) Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 19:44:00 -0000 From: Gabriel Dos Reis To: Daniel Jacobowitz cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: PATCH to gdb/linux-nat.c In-Reply-To: <20070209194127.GA31603@nevyn.them.org> Message-ID: References: <87odo3ofzd.fsf@soliton.cs.tamu.edu> <20070209134923.GA6631@nevyn.them.org> <87tzxve17m.fsf@soliton.cs.tamu.edu> <20070209192353.GA30049@nevyn.them.org> <87irebm86x.fsf@soliton.cs.tamu.edu> <20070209194127.GA31603@nevyn.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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: 2007-02/txt/msg00141.txt.bz2 On Fri, 9 Feb 2007, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: | On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 01:39:50PM -0600, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | > One more favor: Would you mind looking at my other patch? The GCC PR | > I filled was demonstrated to be a duplicate and nothing happened | > since the first PR was filled; I believe GDB+GCC-4.2.0 is affected too. I | > think the patch I sent works around the problem within GDB and | > "improves" the const-correctness of the two functions involved. | | I'd prefer to wait a little while to see if anyone else (Joel maybe) | has comments on that one - he's the expert on that code. Thanks makes sense. Thanks! -- Gaby