From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15019 invoked by alias); 17 Nov 2008 19:33:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 14964 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Nov 2008 19:33:11 -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; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:32:27 +0000 Received: from d24relay01.br.ibm.com (unknown [9.8.31.16]) by igw2.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3161317F51B for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:30:26 -0200 (BRDT) 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 mAHKW1xq2138342 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:32:01 -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 mAHJWOIH018194 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:32:24 -0200 Received: from [9.8.13.78] ([9.8.13.78]) by d24av02.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mAHJWNSE018150 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:32:24 -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: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 23:22:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1226950343.5454.8.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: 2008-11/txt/msg00439.txt.bz2 Ping again. 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