From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-59802-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 1792 invoked by alias); 10 Nov 2008 20:25:09 -0000
Received: (qmail 1770 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Nov 2008 20:25:08 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mtaout2.012.net.il (HELO mtaout2.012.net.il) (84.95.2.4)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 20:24:26 +0000
Received: from conversion-daemon.i_mtaout2.012.net.il by i_mtaout2.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) id <0KA400F00WLTH900@i_mtaout2.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:26:12 +0200 (IST)
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.126.241.172]) by i_mtaout2.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) with ESMTPA id <0KA4002BGWRN7BV1@i_mtaout2.012.net.il>; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:26:12 +0200 (IST)
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 20:45:00 -0000
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [RFA] Process record and replay, 9/10
In-reply-to: <20081110144014.GA12962@caradoc.them.org>
X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
Cc: teawater@gmail.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Message-id: <u1vxjqqgz.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <daef60380811052351p2ce19d86o678efa9b044780d1@mail.gmail.com> <ur65nsi5h.fsf@gnu.org> <daef60380811072104j4e95269cmbf419cf575a90e66@mail.gmail.com> <uabcash7f.fsf@gnu.org> <20081110144014.GA12962@caradoc.them.org>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2008-11/txt/msg00193.txt.bz2

> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 09:40:14 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> Cc: teawater <teawater@gmail.com>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> 
> On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 11:24:52AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > I understand that.  I was asking whether we should store this
> > information in the same place where we store all the other info about
> > Linux system calls, not in the source.
> 
> Ideally, yes, I agree.  But this is type layout rather than system
> call information, and we haven't designed a way to store it in the
> system call database yet.  I'm sure we will at some point, but perhaps
> we should address that afterwards instead of waiting?

I'm fine with doing it later, if we can live with having the info in
two places in the meantime.