From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8662 invoked by alias); 12 Oct 2008 02:26:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 8654 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Oct 2008 02:26:23 -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; Sun, 12 Oct 2008 02:25:15 +0000 Received: from d24relay01.br.ibm.com (unknown [9.8.31.16]) by igw2.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5679F17F462 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 2008 23:08:46 -0300 (BRST) 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 m9C2OxjZ2187332 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 2008 23:24:59 -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 m9C2PArD011989 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 2008 23:25:10 -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 m9C2P94P011979; Sat, 11 Oct 2008 23:25:10 -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: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 02:26:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1223778404.4729.49.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/msg00332.txt.bz2 Hi Joel, On Mon, 2008-10-06 at 13:21 -0400, Joel Brobecker wrote: > 2. I think it should be possible to split the fork/vfork ops > out into a separate file. But the fork/vfork bp_ops use > some static routines from breakpoint.c, and I don't necessarily > want these routines to be exported. One solution would be to > include a .c file from inside breakpoint.c. Not sure that > this is very elegant either. For now, I elected to stay focused > on the conversion. Just some thoughts maybe for later. IMHO this is not an elegant choice, though I don't have any better solution in mind now :-( > OK to commit? I think on principle Daniel agreed, but the devil is > often in the details... So, Daniel already reviewed your patch :-). As my rework on catch syscall heavily depends on your patch, I'm waiting until it gets pushed upstream so that I can start to modify things here. Thank you, -- Sérgio Durigan Júnior Linux on Power Toolchain - Software Engineer Linux Technology Center - LTC IBM Brazil