Re: [PRELIMINARY]: Patch to add bfd support for IBM s390

[Michael Snyder <msnyder at redhat dot 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?