From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23671 invoked by alias); 14 Feb 2006 20:46:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 23662 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Feb 2006 20:46:14 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nile.gnat.com (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 14 Feb 2006 20:46:13 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D9F248CC09; Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:46:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 07195-01; Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:46:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from takamaka.act-europe.fr (s142-179-108-108.bc.hsia.telus.net [142.179.108.108]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2693448CBF8; Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:46:11 -0500 (EST) Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id 3B76047E7E; Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:46:10 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 20:46:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Jim Blandy Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA/rs6000-aix] software_single_step gdbarch method no longer set Message-ID: <20060214204610.GA1163@adacore.com> References: <20051231054133.GL4734@adacore.com> <8f2776cb0602112346m53521756t4c87aedd15aaabd5@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8f2776cb0602112346m53521756t4c87aedd15aaabd5@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i 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/msg00310.txt.bz2 > In rs6000_aix_osabi_sniffer, is it really necessary to check whether > bfd_get_flavour (abfd) == bfd_target_xcoff_flavour? You've already > restricted the sniffer to bfd_target_xcoff_flavour when you called > gdbarch_register_osabi_sniffer, if I'm reading gdbarch_lookup_osabi > correctly. You are very likely right. This is a good catch, I will test the obvious patch asap. Thanks! -- Joel