From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22508 invoked by alias); 21 Mar 2009 00:50:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 22497 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Mar 2009 00:50:42 -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; Sat, 21 Mar 2009 00:50:34 +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 n2L0oVvM020290; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 20:50:31 -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 n2L0oSte003140; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 20:50:28 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-12-185.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.12.185]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2L0oU2x026303; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 20:50:30 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id B7BD65082E6; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:50:28 -0600 (MDT) To: "H.J. Lu" Cc: GDB Subject: Re: RFC: Support DW_TAG_entry_point References: <20090320220041.GA26894@lucon.org> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 01:02:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20090320220041.GA26894@lucon.org> (H. J. Lu's message of "Fri\, 20 Mar 2009 15\:00\:41 -0700") 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: 2009-03/txt/msg00423.txt.bz2 >>>>> "H" == H J Lu writes: HJ> I have a patch to support DW_TAG_entry_point. Should I submit it HJ> with a ChangeLog entry? Yes. A rationale for the patch would also be helpful, at least to me. Tom