This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org 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: Fwd: RFA: GDB manual: clarify lack of restrictions on 'm' packets

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
To: Jim Blandy <jimb at red-bean dot com>
Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 09:12:59 +0200
Subject: Re: Fwd: RFA: GDB manual: clarify lack of restrictions on 'm' packets
References: <8f2776cb0511150102s42abc0a7xfe9ee344ab0224b3@mail.gmail.com> <u4q6d94ly.fsf@gnu.org> <8f2776cb0511151158n20cc5636kc974bc0cf9d967c1@mail.gmail.com> <uy83p6sf9.fsf@gnu.org> <8f2776cb0511152223q4c1414f1l2218bc10dbdfa74e@mail.gmail.com> <8f2776cb0511152238k6b99cd93w4787781ba1120119@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>

> Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 22:38:30 -0800
> From: Jim Blandy <jimb@red-bean.com>
> 
> For memory-mapped I/O, both alignment and size matter; I don't think
> there's a sense in which one is more relevant to the question than the
> other.  So I've committed 1-3; patch attached.  I'm happy to change it
> if you disagree, of course.

I don't disagree.  Thanks.

References:
- RFA: GDB manual: clarify lack of restrictions on 'm' packets
  - From: Jim Blandy
- Re: RFA: GDB manual: clarify lack of restrictions on 'm' packets
  - From: Eli Zaretskii
- Fwd: RFA: GDB manual: clarify lack of restrictions on 'm' packets
  - From: Jim Blandy

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