This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
[Fwd: RFA: [infrun.c] Fix to "nexti".]
- To: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Subject: [Fwd: RFA: [infrun.c] Fix to "nexti".]
- From: Michael Snyder <msnyder at redhat dot com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 10:46:25 -0800
- Organization: Red Hat
Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 10:35:27AM -0500, Fernando Nasser wrote:
> >If there is a maintainer for this code please speak up.
> >
> >Otherwise I will check this in under the "obvious fix" rule.
>
> Do we really have an "obvious fix" rule? It seems that there is
> some confusion on this issue.
We do (I think), but when you're discussing infrun.c, I'm not
sure that any change can be regarded as "obviously correct".
At least not in the wait_for_inferior/handle_event area.
By eyeball, this change looks correct to me, or at least
"not obviously incorrect". I would like to see it tested,
and perhaps the best way to do that is to apply it and then
notice if there's a sudden uptick in testsuite failures.
Michael