From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
To: Randolph Chung <randolph@tausq.org>
Cc: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [patch/RFA] multiarch INSTRUCTION_NULLIFIED
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 17:28:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20041201172811.GA9227@nevyn.them.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20041201172530.GF6359@tausq.org>
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 09:25:30AM -0800, Randolph Chung wrote:
> > > this is exactly what the instruction_nullified method that i added do :)
> >
> > Could you do this at the end of the to_wait hook, if I provided a way
> > for the native target to override to_wait? Oh, I guess it's an
> > architecture property, not a target property, so you'd need to do it
> > for remote stubs too.
>
> probably yes; but why is this better?
Only better if it allowed to remove all reference to this
target-specific problem from core GDB. Which it doesn't sound like it
would.
How do you detect that an instruction is nullified, or where the next
instruction executed will be? Is there a bit in some status register?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-12-01 17:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-11-18 0:02 Randolph Chung
2004-11-18 14:26 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-11-18 16:21 ` Randolph Chung
2004-11-18 16:56 ` Mark Kettenis
2004-11-19 9:25 ` Orjan Friberg
2004-11-23 17:50 ` Randolph Chung
2004-11-23 19:33 ` Mark Kettenis
2004-11-28 17:26 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-11-28 18:41 ` Randolph Chung
2004-11-28 19:55 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-11-29 3:30 ` Randolph Chung
2004-11-29 15:12 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-11-30 6:56 ` Randolph Chung
2004-11-30 14:51 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-11-30 16:44 ` Randolph Chung
2004-11-30 16:59 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-11-30 17:38 ` Randolph Chung
2004-12-01 21:29 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-12-01 22:33 ` Randolph Chung
2004-12-01 23:32 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-12-02 5:24 ` Randolph Chung
2004-12-02 14:27 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-12-03 18:11 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-12-03 18:15 ` Randolph Chung
2004-12-03 18:57 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-12-03 19:57 ` Randolph Chung
2004-12-03 21:40 ` Randolph Chung
2004-12-03 21:58 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-12-03 22:52 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-12-04 0:00 ` Randolph Chung
2004-12-04 0:55 ` Randolph Chung
2004-12-04 11:27 ` Mark Kettenis
2004-12-01 6:19 ` Randolph Chung
2004-12-01 17:11 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-12-01 17:17 ` Randolph Chung
2004-12-01 17:19 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-12-01 17:25 ` Randolph Chung
2004-12-01 17:28 ` Daniel Jacobowitz [this message]
2004-12-01 17:30 ` Randolph Chung
2004-12-01 17:35 ` Randolph Chung
2004-12-01 18:14 ` Randolph Chung
2004-12-01 21:25 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-12-01 13:32 Paul Schlie
2004-12-01 16:25 Randolph Chung
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20041201172811.GA9227@nevyn.them.org \
--to=drow@false.org \
--cc=cagney@gnu.org \
--cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=randolph@tausq.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox