espressif/binutils-gdb
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/espressif/binutils-gdb.git synced 2025-08-06 06:45:56 +08:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

2003-02-04 Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>

Browse Source 
* NEWS: Mention that the mn10200-elf is obsolete.
	* configure.tgt: Obsolete mn10200-*-* target.
	* breakpoint.c (update_breakpoints_after_exec): Update comment to
	mention that the mn10200 is obsolete.
	* breakpoint.h: Ditto.
	* MAINTAINERS: Mark the mn10200-elf as obsolete.
	* config/mn10200/mn10200.mt: Obsolete file.
	* config/mn10200/tm-mn10200.h: Obsolete file.
	* mn10200-tdep.c: Obsolete file.

Index: testsuite/ChangeLog
2003-02-04  Andrew Cagney  <ac131313@redhat.com>

	* gdb.disasm/mn10200.exp: Obsolete file.
	* gdb.trace/Makefile.in (clean mostlyclean): Remove mn10200.
	* gdb.disasm/Makefile.in (clean mostlyclean): Remove mn10200.
	* gdb.base/watchpoint.exp: Mark the mn10200 xfails as obsolete.
This commit is contained in:
Andrew Cagney
2003-02-04 22:49:19 +00:00
parent fd2299bd8d
commit 67f1660612
14 changed files with 1628 additions and 1610 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

4
gdb/breakpoint.c
View File

@ -1238,8 +1238,8 @@ update_breakpoints_after_exec (void)
automagically. Certainly on HP-UX that's true.
Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>: Actually, zero is a perfectly
valid code address on some platforms (like the mn10200 and
mn10300 simulators). We shouldn't assign any special
valid code address on some platforms (like the OBSOLETE mn10200
and mn10300 simulators). We shouldn't assign any special
interpretation to a breakpoint with a zero address. And in
fact, GDB doesn't --- I can't see what that comment above is
talking about. As far as I can tell, setting the address of a