From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4920 invoked by alias); 28 May 2005 18:40:06 -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 4699 invoked by uid 22791); 28 May 2005 18:39:58 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Sat, 28 May 2005 18:39:58 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1Dc6Du-000523-7J; Sat, 28 May 2005 14:39:50 -0400 Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 18:54:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA/alpha] Use correct register for FP branches in alpha_next_pc() Message-ID: <20050528183950.GF26806@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20050526063735.GL1530@adacore.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050526063735.GL1530@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00586.txt.bz2 On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 04:37:35PM +1000, Joel Brobecker wrote: > Blush... Obvious mistake ... > > I looked at the 18 failures I currently have when running the following > testcase (not yet approved): > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2005-05/msg00546.html > > It turns out it was an obvious confusion between the register number > embedded in the instruction, and hte register number as GDB knows it. > Say for instance we have a conditional branch instruction on f16, right > now we read register number 16, which is register a0, not f16! The fix > I just committed seemed to be improving things, but only by chance :-/. > With the attached patch, all tests now PASS. > > 2005-05-26 Joel Brobecker > > * alpha-tdep.c (alpha_next_pc): Use correct register number > for floating-point branch instructions. > > Tested on alpha-tru64 5.1a. No regression, fixes all 18 failures > observed in alpha-step.exp. > > OK to apply? This is OK. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC