From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15509 invoked by alias); 5 Jun 2009 22:54:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 15501 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Jun 2009 22:54:40 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.redhat.com (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Jun 2009 22:54:35 +0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n55MqRh5028986; Fri, 5 Jun 2009 18:52:27 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n55MqQd0010376; Fri, 5 Jun 2009 18:52:27 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-12-153.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.12.153]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n55MqQuR031317; Fri, 5 Jun 2009 18:52:26 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 63D02378615; Fri, 5 Jun 2009 16:52:25 -0600 (MDT) To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, "Ulrich Weigand" Subject: Re: [00/19] Eliminate some more current_gdbarch uses References: <200906052113.n55LDMj4025990@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> <200906052325.03584.pedro@codesourcery.com> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 22:54:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <200906052325.03584.pedro@codesourcery.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Fri\, 5 Jun 2009 23\:25\:03 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) 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: 2009-06/txt/msg00145.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: Pedro> - We should do something smarter about longjmp breakpoint Pedro> lookup at some point. If you have something in mind, I would like to hear it. The next-over-throw patch does something very similar to the longjmp code; I would be happy to update both at once. Tom