From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>
To: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: RFA: handle missing fpregs
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 17:08:00 -0000
Message-id: <vt2u0yow6pu.fsf@zenia.home>
References: <vt21xlx19f8.fsf@zenia.home> <20040507131804.7c9325d6@saguaro> <vt2pt9gx81k.fsf@zenia.home> <20040507155610.43b806ff@saguaro>
X-SW-Source: 2004-05/msg00289.html

Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com> writes:

> On 07 May 2004 16:05:11 -0500
> Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > > > +     /* On RS6000 variants that have no floating-point registers, the
> > > > +        next two members will be -1.  */
> > > 
> > > I'm not comfortable with the term "RS6000 variants" here.  I'd be happier
> > > with "PPC variants", though that's probably not strictly correct either.
> > > I suppose you could just say "On cores that have no floating-point
> > > registers...".
> > 
> > The issue is that people might not immediately see all PPC's as RS6000
> > variants, right?  Fair enough.  "RS6000 variants" is historically
> > correct, but it's not like anyone has fabricated an RS6000 in recent
> > history.  I've changed that to "On PPC and RS6000 variants that ...".
> 
> Okay, that's fine.
> 
> Your revised patch is okay to commit.
> 
> Thanks!

Committed.  What a wonderful day!  :)