From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11978 invoked by alias); 10 Oct 2008 15:28:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 11965 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Oct 2008 15:28:38 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from igw2.br.ibm.com (HELO igw2.br.ibm.com) (32.104.18.25) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:27:54 +0000 Received: from d24relay01.br.ibm.com (unknown [9.8.31.16]) by igw2.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5539E17F619 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:11:31 -0300 (BRT) Received: from d24av02.br.ibm.com (d24av02.br.ibm.com [9.18.232.47]) by d24relay01.br.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.1) with ESMTP id m9AFRfF72719848 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:27:41 -0300 Received: from d24av02.br.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d24av02.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m9AFRpKG023496 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:27:51 -0300 Received: from [9.8.6.22] ([9.8.6.22]) by d24av02.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m9AFRoJ3023476; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:27:51 -0300 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] 'catch syscall' feature -- Architecture-independent part From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=E9rgio?= Durigan =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=FAnior?= To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <20081006172136.GA3588@adacore.com> References: <1222798409.30389.23.camel@miki> <20081002211256.GO3665@adacore.com> <1223001252.9858.11.camel@miki> <20081003060629.GQ3665@adacore.com> <1223161515.5956.25.camel@miki> <20081006172136.GA3588@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:28:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1223652568.4729.15.camel@miki> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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: 2008-10/txt/msg00322.txt.bz2 Hi Joel, On Mon, 2008-10-06 at 13:21 -0400, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > Meanwhile, I'll try to understand and improve things by my own :-). > > Here is a patch that converts fork/vfork catchpoints to using > breakpoint_ops. I introduces 3 new "methods" for inserting/removing/ > and breakpoint_hit, and should give you an idea of what the code > should look like. For your feature, let's see if others agree to > check it in. If it goes in, then you can leverage on the new kind. I have executed a regression test with your patch, and it does not cause any regressions for both PPC and PPC64. Thought it would be nice to tell :-). Regards, -- Sérgio Durigan Júnior Linux on Power Toolchain - Software Engineer Linux Technology Center - LTC IBM Brazil