From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ben Elliston <bje@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
Cc: cgd@broadcom.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [MIPS sim patch] sim_monitor cleanup
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:12:00 -0000
Message-id: <14993.32286.16403.330031@scooby.cygnus.com>
References: <14992.37492.971949.281244@scooby.cygnus.com> <3A916F98.FB189897@cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-02/msg00371.html

>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com> writes:

  Andrew> Almost.  I'm fine with the theory just not the implementation.  Reading:

  Andrew> !          int reason = (instruction >> RSVD_INSTRUCTION_ARG_SHIFT) &
  Andrew> RSVD_INSTRUCTION_ARG_MASK;
  Andrew> !          if (sim_monitor (SD, CPU, cia, reason))
  Andrew> !            sim_io_error (sd, "TODO sim_monitor: reason = %d, pc =
  Andrew> 0x%s\n", reason, pr_addr (cia));

  Andrew> just looks wierd.

  Andrew> Could sim_monitor() return zero or negative to indicate fail (both are
  Andrew> more common conventions) and perhaphs change ``TODO'' to something more
  Andrew> meanginful :-)

Done.  I've negated the sense of sim_monitor()'s result and the error
message now reads:

  "sim_monitor: unhandled reason = %d, pc = 0x%s\n", reason, pr_addr (cia)

Okay to commit?

Ben