From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10687 invoked by alias); 7 Jan 2009 16:09:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 10482 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Jan 2009 16:09:15 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 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/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 07 Jan 2009 16:09:11 +0000 Received: from d24relay01.br.ibm.com (unknown [9.8.31.16]) by igw2.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F73717F63A for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2009 12:51:11 -0200 (BRDT) Received: from d24av01.br.ibm.com (d24av01.br.ibm.com [9.18.232.46]) by d24relay01.br.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.1) with ESMTP id n07H8eni3920072 for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2009 14:08:40 -0300 Received: from d24av01.br.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d24av01.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n07G97iN001654 for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2009 14:09:07 -0200 Received: from [9.18.202.234] ([9.18.202.234]) by d24av01.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n07G9233001404; Wed, 7 Jan 2009 14:09:03 -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: Mark Kettenis Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <200901070955.n079twBj014790@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> References: <1223404355.7030.20.camel@miki> <1224184035.27672.64.camel@miki> <1231289020.2026.3.camel@miki> <200901070955.n079twBj014790@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 16:09:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1231344540.2026.7.camel@miki> Mime-Version: 1.0 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: 2009-01/txt/msg00099.txt.bz2 Hi Mark, On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 10:55 +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > Do you really need those autoconf checks for PTRACE_GETREGS & friends? > I don't see things like HAVE_PTRACE_GETREGS used in the code at all, > which makes sense since you can just check whether PTRACE_GETREGS is > defined in your code. Hmm, I think you're right. I'm going to remove those checks and resubmit the patch. Thanks! -- Sérgio Durigan Júnior Linux on Power Toolchain - Software Engineer Linux Technology Center - LTC IBM Brazil