From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15035 invoked by alias); 22 Mar 2005 18:49:53 -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 14942 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2005 18:49:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 22 Mar 2005 18:49:44 -0000 Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (root@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl [192.168.0.2]) by sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j2MInZWU011406; Tue, 22 Mar 2005 19:49:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j2MInY56029074; Tue, 22 Mar 2005 19:49:34 +0100 (CET) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id j2MInUBs002127; Tue, 22 Mar 2005 19:49:30 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 18:49:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200503221849.j2MInUBs002127@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: jitendra@linsyssoft.com CC: drow@false.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <1111500324.4237.33.camel@ind> (message from Jitendra Pawar on Tue, 22 Mar 2005 19:35:24 +0530) Subject: Re: [patch] gdbserver fails on 32-bit ppc rfs running in a-64 bit 2.6 linux kernel References: <1110991758.5464.8.camel@ind> <20050316165705.GA7195@nevyn.them.org> <1111500324.4237.33.camel@ind> X-SW-Source: 2005-03/txt/msg00285.txt.bz2 From: Jitendra Pawar Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 19:35:24 +0530 > > >On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 06:36:22PM +0530, Amit S. Kale wrote: > > >> The strtoul change in my patch was already present. Sorry about that. > > >> > > >> You have changed the data type of thread_resume::thread as well as cont_thread > > >> to unsigned long. "cont_thread = -1" and "(cont_thread > 0)" are still in > > >> place. How does this work? There are about 15 files in gdb source have statement pid_to_ptid (-1); which finally returns -1 to server. Is it OK to replace -1 with 0 ? Certainly not. pid_to_ptid(-1), a.k.a. minus_one_ptid has a very special meaning within gdb. See the comment in inferior.h. Mark