From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10676 invoked by alias); 9 Feb 2006 18:00:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 10667 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Feb 2006 18:00:31 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 18:00:30 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1F7G5k-0007lh-25 for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 13:00:28 -0500 Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 18:00:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA/rs6000-aix] software_single_step gdbarch method no longer set Message-ID: <20060209180028.GA29610@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20051231054133.GL4734@adacore.com> <20051231060032.GA17641@nevyn.them.org> <20060207200351.GD1215@adacore.com> <20060209105557.2eec5505@ironwood.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060209105557.2eec5505@ironwood.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-02/txt/msg00216.txt.bz2 On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 10:55:57AM -0700, Kevin Buettner wrote: > On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 12:03:51 -0800 > Joel Brobecker wrote: > > > Makes sense, but ... > > > > > It's unfortunately a little trickier than that since remote targets > > > don't currently report whether using software singlestep is OK :-( > > > So setting the default behavior may not be simple. I know gdbserver > > > needs some adjustment here. > > > > I don't have that much time in the forseeable future to work on this, > > unfortunately. I would also like to work on some other cleanup > > activities, including the procfs stuff (which I promised to Mark and > > yet haven't had time to look at). > > > > So I'd rather see if my proposal can go in for now. > > I've just looked over your patch. It looks reasonable to me and I think > it should go in. I totally agree; apologies if my suggestion came across as an objection. I just looked at the patch for the first time and it looks totally fine. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery