From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15252 invoked by alias); 3 Jul 2002 19:34:18 -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 15244 invoked from network); 3 Jul 2002 19:34:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO zwingli.cygnus.com) (208.245.165.35) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 3 Jul 2002 19:34:14 -0000 Received: by zwingli.cygnus.com (Postfix, from userid 442) id 876E15EA11; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 14:34:13 -0500 (EST) To: Michael Snyder Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFC: initial TLS patch References: <3D223796.A3911C80@redhat.com> From: Jim Blandy Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 13:10:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <3D223796.A3911C80@redhat.com> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00062.txt.bz2 Michael Snyder writes: > As a preliminary comment, I think the design is pretty sound. > I haven't finished my "eyeball review", but I hope to look at > it some more tomorrow (before the 4th of july break). Okay, great. > One thing -- I'm a little leary about the target module > actually building a struct value. Seems like that should > be done at a higher level. Yes, I agree that's somewhat questionable. I'm going to take that out for this pass; when thread_db provides the support we need to do fancier things, we can revisit the question.