From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2190 invoked by alias); 27 Mar 2002 02:26:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 2161 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2002 02:26:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dberlin.org) (64.246.6.106) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Mar 2002 02:26:33 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by dberlin.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g2R2QVm13614; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 21:26:31 -0500 Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 18:26:00 -0000 From: Daniel Berlin To: Andrew Cagney cc: Jim Blandy , Subject: Re: [PATCH] Let dwarf2 CFI's execute_stack_op be used outside of CFI In-Reply-To: <3CA12BC8.70203@cygnus.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg00523.txt.bz2 On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Andrew Cagney wrote: > This doesn't read right. Note additional line. > > > > On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > > > >> > Errr, not really. > >> What I said is correct. > >> It is parameterized already with a frame and an expression. > >> It's just that we want to hand it a different type of frame. > > > > You are mistaken in your assertion below: > > > >> You implied it wasn't parameterized with either, when it has been since > the beginning. > > If it could be interpreted that way then it wasn't the intent. Then I must have misinterpreted it. My apologies. > > > Have you ever considered that you might have just been unclear? > > > > Yes. > > Andrew > > >