This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [RFA]: Fix for pending breakpoints in manually loaded/unloadedshlibs

From: Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn at redhat dot com>
To: Andrew Cagney <cagney at gnu dot org>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>, drow at false dot org, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 14:01:17 -0400
Subject: Re: [RFA]: Fix for pending breakpoints in manually loaded/unloadedshlibs
References: <41191D71.60204@redhat.com> <20040811171203.GA4152@nevyn.them.org> <411A7D97.50104@redhat.com> <20040818135621.GA26257@nevyn.them.org> <4123AC6E.8000300@redhat.com> <20040818193952.GA27639@nevyn.them.org> <4123B62C.6060703@redhat.com> <E1Bxe7Z-0005zh-8E@fencepost.gnu.org> <4135E722.2030401@gnu.org>

Andrew Cagney wrote:

Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 16:03:56 -0400
From: Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn@redhat.com>
Eli, in light of what Daniel and Andrew have said regarding the value of having an observer, may I repost with changes and check the code in?
I'm still unconvinced, but I won't veto it.
Jeff, the observer and use can be committed.

Thanks. Patches committed, including fix to the testcase.

Eli, I'm not sure what you're looking for here:
I'd like to see at least a couple more cases like this before I agree
that a generalization is in order.
can you expand a little?

Andrew

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [RFA]: Fix for pending breakpoints in manually loaded/unloaded shlibs
  - From: Michael Chastain

References:
- Re: [RFA]: Fix for pending breakpoints in manually loaded/unloadedshlibs
  - From: Andrew Cagney

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]