From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23904 invoked by alias); 5 Apr 2011 19:33:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 23892 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Apr 2011 19:33:17 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,TW_OC,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from hub3.qnx.com (HELO hub3.qnx.com) (209.226.137.86) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Apr 2011 19:33:09 +0000 Received: by hub3.qnx.com (Postfix, from userid 32767) id 837196C51B1; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 15:33:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from orion.ott.qnx.com (orion.ott.qnx.com [10.42.3.40]) by hub3.qnx.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2065E6C51AF; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 15:33:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nebula.ott.qnx.com ([10.42.3.30]) by orion.ott.qnx.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 5 Apr 2011 15:31:38 -0400 Received: from [10.42.98.11] ([10.42.98.11]) by nebula.ott.qnx.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 5 Apr 2011 15:31:50 -0400 Subject: Re: [rfc v2][rft (procfs, nto-procfs)] Fix signal bypass heuristic with software single-step From: Aleksandar Ristovski To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: Pedro Alves , brobecker@adacore.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <201104051922.p35JMeFA006141@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> References: <201104051922.p35JMeFA006141@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 19:33:00 -0000 Message-ID: <1302031911.16582.31.camel@qnxws7629> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2011-04/txt/msg00078.txt.bz2 Hello all, Thanks for thinking about nto :-) I haven't been able to be active lately, but hope will come back soon. On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 15:22 -0400, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > Pedro Alves wrote: > > On Thursday 31 March 2011 20:11:49, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > > > Thoughts? > > > > This makes sense to me. Thanks for thinking this through. > > > > The patch looked okay to me. > > Thanks for your review and comments! > > > I'd prefer if there were some way to test this on a profcs and a > nto-procfs target before applying the patch, though ... > > Joel, I was wondering if you still have some procfs-based machines > (e.g. Solaris) where you could run a test? > > Aleksandar, would it be possible for you to test the patch on a > NTO machine? [AR] yes, but you'd have to give me some time. I am over my head with work on immediate deliveries. How urgent do you need it? Thanks, Aleksandar > > The patch in question is here: > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-03/msg01223.html > > Thanks for your help! > > Bye, > Ulrich > > -- > Dr. Ulrich Weigand > GNU Toolchain for Linux on System z and Cell BE > Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com > >