From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26856 invoked by alias); 16 Oct 2008 20:07:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 26668 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Oct 2008 20:07:40 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from igw3.br.ibm.com (HELO igw3.br.ibm.com) (32.104.18.26) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 20:06:57 +0000 Received: from d24relay01.br.ibm.com (unknown [9.8.31.16]) by igw3.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34DF1390230 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 16:43:41 -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 m9GK5Ple2371658 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 17:05:25 -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 m9GK5cK7006931 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 18:05:38 -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 m9GK5b1c006861 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 18:05:37 -0200 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improve the fetch/store of general-purpose and floating-point PowerPC registers From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=E9rgio?= Durigan =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=FAnior?= To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <1223404355.7030.20.camel@miki> References: <1223404355.7030.20.camel@miki> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 20:07:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1224184035.27672.64.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/msg00416.txt.bz2 Hey guys, Ping? Regards, On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 15:32 -0300, Sérgio Durigan Júnior wrote: > Hi guys, > > The following patch improves the way GDB does fetch/store operations on > general-purpose and floating-point registers on the PowerPC > architecture. Basically, it uses the ptrace() options > PTRACE_{GET,SET}REGS, PTRACE_{GET,SET}FPREGS and PTRACE_{GET,SET}REGS64. > > I've tested it running a regression test on various machines/kernel > combinations, and it does not cause any regression. > > Comments, as always, are welcome. > > Regards, > -- Sérgio Durigan Júnior Linux on Power Toolchain - Software Engineer Linux Technology Center - LTC IBM Brazil