From 50e3ee830c22f8b63b6eebee36cee465261386aa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Theodore A. Roth" Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 20:29:15 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] * gdbint.texinfo (Breakpoint Handling): Correct a double negative. --- gdb/doc/ChangeLog | 4 ++++ gdb/doc/gdbint.texinfo | 2 +- 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/gdb/doc/ChangeLog b/gdb/doc/ChangeLog index f8e992db1bc..ba39d428822 100644 --- a/gdb/doc/ChangeLog +++ b/gdb/doc/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ +2003-05-14 Theodore A. Roth + + * gdbint.texinfo (Breakpoint Handling): Correct a double negative. + 2003-05-10 H.J. Lu * Makefile.in (gdb-cfg.texi): Replace $$LN_S with $(LN_S). diff --git a/gdb/doc/gdbint.texinfo b/gdb/doc/gdbint.texinfo index 28cdc82242a..12bd4040c41 100644 --- a/gdb/doc/gdbint.texinfo +++ b/gdb/doc/gdbint.texinfo @@ -288,7 +288,7 @@ A third possibility is that the target already has the ability to do breakpoints somehow; for instance, a ROM monitor may do its own software breakpoints. So although these are not literally ``hardware breakpoints'', from @value{GDBN}'s point of view they work the same; -@value{GDBN} need not do nothing more than set the breakpoint and wait +@value{GDBN} need not do anything more than set the breakpoint and wait for something to happen. Since they depend on hardware resources, hardware breakpoints may be -- 2.30.2