From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18668 invoked by alias); 16 Apr 2009 11:15:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 18640 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Apr 2009 11:15:03 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-out.m-online.net (HELO mail-out.m-online.net) (212.18.0.10) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 11:14:56 +0000 Received: from mail01.m-online.net (mail.m-online.net [192.168.3.149]) by mail-out.m-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 541351C000E2; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:14:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (dynscan2.mnet-online.de [192.168.1.215]) by mail.m-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7B869019F; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:14:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.mnet-online.de ([192.168.3.149]) by localhost (dynscan2.mnet-online.de [192.168.1.215]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JRo-tdhO7dik; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:14:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from igel.home (DSL01.83.171.182.115.ip-pool.NEFkom.net [83.171.182.115]) by mail.mnet-online.de (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:14:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: by igel.home (Postfix, from userid 501) id 6E9FE10D91E; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:14:51 +0200 (CEST) From: Andreas Schwab To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: obsolete comment in m68klinux-nat.c... References: <20090416070008.GH7603@adacore.com> X-Yow: Used staples are good with SOY SAUCE! Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:14:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20090416070008.GH7603@adacore.com> (Joel Brobecker's message of "Thu, 16 Apr 2009 00:00:08 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.92 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-04/txt/msg00137.txt.bz2 Joel Brobecker writes: > I can see that the duplication is still there, but I think that things > might have changed quite a bit since the FIXME was written. It looks > like you are maintaining GDB on that platform, so I was wondering if > you could take a look at the comment and maybe update it a bit? The situation is no different from i386-linux-nat.c, which can get away without such a comment. I'll remove it and simplify fetch_register and store_register along the way. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for something completely different."