From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24532 invoked by alias); 5 Nov 2008 18:43:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 24493 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Nov 2008 18:43:40 -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; Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:42:59 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.i_mtaout2.012.net.il by i_mtaout2.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) id <0K9V00300ILUG500@i_mtaout2.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Wed, 05 Nov 2008 20:44:39 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.126.241.172]) by i_mtaout2.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) with ESMTPA id <0K9V00LF9IQE6HN1@i_mtaout2.012.net.il>; Wed, 05 Nov 2008 20:44:39 +0200 (IST) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:43:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] 'catch syscall' feature -- Architecture-independent part In-reply-to: <20081105145449.GA26401@caradoc.them.org> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: bauerman@br.ibm.com, sergiodj@linux.vnet.ibm.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: References: <1225773079.24532.52.camel@miki> <1225836687.20764.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20081104223421.GC5391@caradoc.them.org> <20081105145449.GA26401@caradoc.them.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2008-11/txt/msg00083.txt.bz2 > Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 09:54:49 -0500 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > Cc: bauerman@br.ibm.com, sergiodj@linux.vnet.ibm.com, > gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > Should we make the description of 'catch syscall' more clear to > exclude other OS facilities? We could, but that would be second best, IMO. It would be better to make the abstraction less Unix-centric.