From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9442 invoked by alias); 8 Nov 2005 11:05:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 9388 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Nov 2005 11:05:34 -0000 Received: from fra-del-04.spheriq.net (HELO fra-del-04.spheriq.net) (195.46.51.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Tue, 08 Nov 2005 11:05:34 +0000 Received: from fra-out-02.spheriq.net (fra-out-02.spheriq.net [195.46.51.130]) by fra-del-04.spheriq.net with ESMTP id jA8B5Shf001446 for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 11:05:28 GMT Received: from fra-cus-02.spheriq.net (fra-cus-02.spheriq.net [195.46.51.38]) by fra-out-02.spheriq.net with ESMTP id jA8B5O3r025837 for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 11:05:25 GMT Received: from beta.dmz-eu.st.com (beta.dmz-eu.st.com [164.129.1.35]) by fra-cus-02.spheriq.net with ESMTP id jA8B500c020829 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK); Tue, 8 Nov 2005 11:05:16 GMT Received: from zeta.dmz-eu.st.com (ns2.st.com [164.129.230.9]) by beta.dmz-eu.st.com (STMicroelectronics) with ESMTP id A2C2FDA63; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 11:04:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: by zeta.dmz-eu.st.com (STMicroelectronics, from userid 60012) id AA1DA47453; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 11:07:18 +0000 (GMT) Received: from zeta.dmz-eu.st.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zeta.dmz-eu.st.com (STMicroelectronics) with ESMTP id E9C8C759AF; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 11:07:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail1.bri.st.com (mail1.bri.st.com [164.129.8.218]) by zeta.dmz-eu.st.com (STMicroelectronics) with ESMTP id 7860A47457; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 11:07:17 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [164.129.15.13] (terrorhawk.bri.st.com [164.129.15.13]) by mail1.bri.st.com (MOS 3.5.8-GR) with ESMTP id CGJ02398 (AUTH "andrew stubbs"); Tue, 8 Nov 2005 11:04:21 GMT Message-ID: <437085AF.9080602@st.com> Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 11:05:00 -0000 From: Andrew STUBBS User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFC: GDB as a loader 3/3: --eval-command option References: <4354DD31.3020809@st.com> <436B4B87.1060801@st.com> <20051105025059.GB20989@nevyn.them.org> <436F610C.5080508@st.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-O-Spoofed: Not Scanned X-O-General-Status: No X-O-Spam1-Status: Not Scanned X-O-Spam2-Status: Not Scanned X-O-URL-Status: Not Scanned X-O-Virus1-Status: No X-O-Virus2-Status: Not Scanned X-O-Virus3-Status: No X-O-Virus4-Status: No X-O-Virus5-Status: Not Scanned X-O-Image-Status: Not Scanned X-O-Attach-Status: Not Scanned X-SpheriQ-Ver: 4.1.07 X-SW-Source: 2005-11/txt/msg00191.txt.bz2 Eli Zaretskii wrote: >>Should I add a 6.5 section for my changes? > > > Only if we decide not to commit them to the branch as well. > Personally, I don't see why not have them in 6.4, they cannot possibly > harm anything. Anybody object to my putting --return-child-result (including the header file update) and --eval-command into 6.4? Anybody else in favour? Andrew