From: Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Message-Id: <199903241806.TAA10783@father.ludd.luth.se>
Subject: Re: Patch: Child memory access in dbgcom checks page attributes
To: nate AT cartsys DOT com
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 19:06:50 +0100 (MET)
Cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com (DJGPP-WORKERS)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL15 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

I said:
> The change I object to is this:

I object to my wording, which wasn't chosen properly.

I meant to say "The change I'm concerned with is this:".

To further alleviate my troubled mind, I seem to have missread the
patch, which seems to be correct mathematically. However I'm still a
little concerned with the real world behaviuor.

Nate, what does "p *-1" at the gdb prompt give you when running a
program in gdb with your patches?


Arnold, Symphony No. 4,

							MartinS