From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8228 invoked by alias); 1 Dec 2004 17:28:39 -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 8057 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2004 17:28:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 1 Dec 2004 17:28:21 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1CZYGx-0002Pz-Gg; Wed, 01 Dec 2004 12:28:15 -0500 Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 17:28:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Randolph Chung Cc: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/RFA] multiarch INSTRUCTION_NULLIFIED Message-ID: <20041201172811.GA9227@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Randolph Chung , Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <41AA09F8.4020006@gnu.org> <20041128184141.GG6359@tausq.org> <41AA2D08.3030304@gnu.org> <20041129033013.GJ6359@tausq.org> <41AB3C1D.80509@gnu.org> <20041201061924.GZ6359@tausq.org> <20041201171137.GA8037@nevyn.them.org> <20041201171712.GE6359@tausq.org> <20041201171910.GA8771@nevyn.them.org> <20041201172530.GF6359@tausq.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041201172530.GF6359@tausq.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-12/txt/msg00027.txt.bz2 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