From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2192 invoked by alias); 27 Sep 2002 17:12:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 2184 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2002 17:12:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO heimdall.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Sep 2002 17:12:20 -0000 Received: from Zaretsky ([80.230.2.40]) by heimdall.inter.net.il (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.1.0.58-GA) with ESMTP id BUD96116; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 20:12:07 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 10:12:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: ac131313@redhat.com Message-Id: <2427-Fri27Sep2002201112+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> CC: gdb@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <3D938E6F.6090809@redhat.com> (message from Andrew Cagney on Thu, 26 Sep 2002 18:47:11 -0400) Subject: Re: RFC: dummy.[hc] and ``struct dummy'' Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <3D938E6F.6090809@redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00477.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 18:47:11 -0400 > From: Andrew Cagney > > I'd like to float the idea of moving all the generic dummy frame code > into a new file dummy.[hc]. Yes, but I'd suggest to call the files something other than dummy.*, lest someone thinks they are junk ;-)