From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3065 invoked by alias); 19 May 2008 12:39:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 3054 invoked by uid 22791); 19 May 2008 12:39:06 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from igw1.br.ibm.com (HELO igw1.br.ibm.com) (32.104.18.24) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 19 May 2008 12:38:43 +0000 Received: from mailhub1.br.ibm.com (mailhub1 [9.18.232.109]) by igw1.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1D3A32C128 for ; Mon, 19 May 2008 09:14:22 -0300 (BRST) Received: from d24av01.br.ibm.com (d24av01.br.ibm.com [9.18.232.46]) by mailhub1.br.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id m4JCcfHV1347922 for ; Mon, 19 May 2008 09:38:41 -0300 Received: from d24av01.br.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d24av01.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m4JCcToS010812 for ; Mon, 19 May 2008 09:38:29 -0300 Received: from [9.18.196.30] ([9.18.196.30]) by d24av01.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m4JCcSiA010791 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 19 May 2008 09:38:28 -0300 Subject: Re: [PATCH] PPC - Stepping off breakpoints in non-stop mode From: Luis Machado Reply-To: luisgpm@linux.vnet.ibm.com To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <1209753019.7131.29.camel@gargoyle> References: <1209753019.7131.29.camel@gargoyle> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 15:20:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1211200708.6232.1.camel@gargoyle> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-05/txt/msg00552.txt.bz2 Ping? Anyone had a chance to look into this? Best regards, Luis On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 15:30 -0300, Luis Machado wrote: > Hi folks, > > This is the ppc-specific code to step off breakpoints in non-stop mode. > The main code is the fixup function, responsible for making sure we have > the correct PC after a displaced stepping has been concluded. > > It applies on top of Pedro and Jim's more general displaced stepping > patch. > > Tested without regressions on PPC 32/64. > > Is this OK? Comments? > > Best regards, > Luis