From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17314 invoked by alias); 16 Oct 2008 03:35:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 17295 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Oct 2008 03:35:00 -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; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 03:34:17 +0000 Received: from d24relay01.br.ibm.com (unknown [9.8.31.16]) by igw1.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B0AF32C1F1 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 00:01:53 -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 m9G3Y05b2510932 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 00:34:00 -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 m9G3YCTs028298 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 01:34:12 -0200 Received: from [9.8.1.247] ([9.8.1.247]) by d24av02.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m9G3YCmW028293; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 01:34:12 -0200 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: <20081015054005.GA3647@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> <1223778404.4729.49.camel@miki> <20081015054005.GA3647@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 03:35:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1224124550.27672.62.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/msg00394.txt.bz2 Hi Joel, On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 22:40 -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote: > So, Sergio, here is what I'm proposing: If you are in a hurry, then > can you investigate the reason for the regressions? It shouldn't be > too difficult. Once fixed and approved, you can then start building > your patch on top of mine. If you're not in a hurry, then I'll pick > it up again when I have some free time again. Thanks a lot for your patch! I know you must be totally busy now, so thanks again for taking your time to do this. Well, I took your patch and ran the testsuite here for both PPC and PPC64 archs. Things seem to be OK! I wasn't able to reproduce this regression you told; (I don't think so, but just in case...) maybe it's an x86 issue? Or maybe this particular test is non-deterministic? Anyway, if you (or anybody) could give me more pointers to this I'd appreciate :-). Regards, -- Sérgio Durigan Júnior Linux on Power Toolchain - Software Engineer Linux Technology Center - LTC IBM Brazil