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: Multiplexed registers and invalidating the register cache

> Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:43:12 -0400
> From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
> >>
> >>>> > +The target's register contents has changed.
> >>
> >>> 
> >>> FYI, this should probably read:
> >>> 	The target's memory or register contents have [has?] changed.
> >>> eli?
> > 
> > 
> > I'm not sure; what is the difference between the two wordings?
> 
> "have" sounds right (...), hmm.  Check dictionary ``/has/ 3rd person 
> _singular_, present of /have/'' [canadian oxford] so "have" is correct.

I didn't realize that you were talking only about "has" vs "have"
(your alternative wording was different in other ways).  I agree that
"have" is correct here.
Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]