From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27079 invoked by alias); 9 Nov 2011 18:22:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 27068 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Nov 2011 18:22:29 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,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; Wed, 09 Nov 2011 18:22:14 +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 pA9ILbsK004699 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 9 Nov 2011 13:21:38 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pA9ILbEl027741; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 13:21:37 -0500 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pA9ILZOs019395; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 13:21:35 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: "Ulrich Weigand" Cc: pedro@codesourcery.com (Pedro Alves), gdb-patches@sourceware.org, brobecker@adacore.com (Joel Brobecker) Subject: Re: RFC: remove gdbarch from struct breakpoint References: <201111081718.pA8HInH6022772@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 18:22:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Tom Tromey's message of "Tue, 08 Nov 2011 11:09:42 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.90 (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: 2011-11/txt/msg00245.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Tom" == Tom Tromey writes: Tom> Looking back, I am not certain there is an actual need for this patch. Tom> I am going to see what happens if I just drop it. It all still seems to work. I think I thought I needed that patch, so I wrote it early on, but turned out to be mistaken about this and didn't notice. Tom