This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PRELIMINARY]: Patch to add bfd support for IBM s390
- To: DJBARROW at de dot ibm dot com
- Subject: Re: [PRELIMINARY]: Patch to add bfd support for IBM s390
- From: Michael Snyder <msnyder at redhat dot com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 11:02:20 -0700
- CC: gdb-patches at sourceware dot cygnus dot com, schwidefsky at de dot ibm dot com
- Organization: Red Hat, Inc.
- References: <C1256946.00620C31.00@d12mta09.de.ibm.com>
DJBARROW@de.ibm.com wrote:
>
> Sure thing I'm going back home till Thursday so apologies for the lack of
> correspondance,
> Is 5.0 adequete or should I move to something newer.
If you can, it would be great if you would check out the
up-to-the-minute sources from sourceware.cygnus.com
and submit diffs against those.
> D.J. Barrow Linux for S/390 kernel developer
> eMail: djbarrow@de.ibm.com,barrow_dj@yahoo.com
> Phone: +49-(0)7031-16-2583
> IBM Germany Lab, Schönaicherstr. 220, 71032 Böblingen
>
> Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> on 25.08.2000 19:35:34
>
> Please respond to Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>
>
> To: Denis Joseph Barrow/Germany/Contr/IBM@IBMDE
> cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.cygnus.com, Martin
> Schwidefsky/Germany/IBM@IBMDE
> Subject: Re: [PRELIMINARY]: Patch to add bfd support for IBM s390
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> DJBARROW@de.ibm.com wrote:
> >
> > Sorry I was referring to hardware watchpoints when making this comment.
> >
> > The breakpoint.c kludge I did as far as I remember is probably unwanted,
> I
> > just found that the
> > hardware breakpoints in 4-18 were in absolutely terrible shape staying in
> > when not wanted &
> > disappearing for no reason, has this code improved ?, my clueless kludge
> > improved the situation a tiny
> > bit in the test cases I was playing with.
> > I haven't had a chance to see whether the 5.0 code has improved
> > substantially in my opinion
> > this code needs a lot of attention by someone who knows it, if this code
> > has improved recently
> > please leave this out.
>
> How about if we remove it from your base port submission,
> and revisit it if necessary after?