This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Resend: [RFA] Fix problem with i386 watchpoints after restarting
- From: Pierre Muller <muller at ics dot u-strasbg dot fr>
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- Cc: Mark Kettenis <kettenis at chello dot nl>,gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 18:31:18 +0200
- Subject: Re: Resend: [RFA] Fix problem with i386 watchpoints after restarting
- References: <4.2.0.58.20020704143015.02832028@ics.u-strasbg.fr><200206131016.g5DAGcf00647@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org><4.2.0.58.20020613091046.01957c70@ics.u-strasbg.fr><4.2.0.58.20020613091046.01957c70@ics.u-strasbg.fr><4.2.0.58.20020704143015.02832028@ics.u-strasbg.fr>
At 18:25 04/07/2002 , Daniel Jacobowitz a écrit:
>On Thu, Jul 04, 2002 at 03:12:46PM +0200, Pierre Muller wrote:
> > At 15:35 17/06/2002 , Pierre Muller a écrit:
> > >At 12:16 13/06/2002 , Mark Kettenis a écrit:
> > > >Sorry, I somehow missed your earlier message. This seems to me as an
> > > >acceptable way to solve the problem (although I still think there is
> > > >something wrong with GDB's mechanism of removing hardware breakpoints.
> > > >But: could you add the reason why this is needed to the comment.
> > > >Minor nit: Please end your sentences with a '.' and put two spaces
> > > >after it.
> > >OK, I slightly modifed the patch
> > >by adding a comment to i386-nat.c
> > >and correcting the comment in the nm-i386.h file.
> > >
> > >Can I check this in?
> >
> > After getting approval by a private mail, I have
> > checked this in.
>
>Is this appropriate for the branch also? My instincts say yes.
Isn't 5.2.1 aleady frozen?
I would also be in favor of putting it into the branch, but I don't know who should decide this....
Pierre Muller
Institut Charles Sadron
6,rue Boussingault
F 67083 STRASBOURG CEDEX (France)
mailto:muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr
Phone : (33)-3-88-41-40-07 Fax : (33)-3-88-41-40-99