From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11523 invoked by alias); 27 Feb 2002 07:08:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 11458 invoked from network); 27 Feb 2002 07:08:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Feb 2002 07:08:34 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16fyC8-0005ix-00; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 02:08:08 -0500 Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 23:08:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] PTRACE_*REGS and x86-64-linux support for gdbserver Message-ID: <20020227020808.A21701@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20020227013749.A20342@nevyn.them.org> <3C7C8196.2030005@cygnus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3C7C8196.2030005@cygnus.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00717.txt.bz2 On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 01:49:58AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > Yes, ok. Thanks, committed. > I noticed, in an earlier patch you create a new ``..._linux'' .dat file. > That addresses the only concern I had - were some of these register > format files GNU/Linux specific. If they were, you were renaming them. They weren't; at the time I made them, we had the glorious state of affairs where none of the Linux targets had unique register mappings. At least, I still believe that. orig_eax came along later and put the lie to that... I still feel like there should be a better solution; but that will require some thinking about the remote protocol, and can wait. The new register file conveniently snuck in just under the 8.3 ARI limit, too :) -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer