From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17909 invoked by alias); 12 Apr 2007 12:58:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 17874 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Apr 2007 12:58:57 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from return.false.org (HELO return.false.org) (66.207.162.98) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:58:52 +0100 Received: from return.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by return.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 767194B267; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 07:58:51 -0500 (CDT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (dsl093-172-095.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.172.95]) by return.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFE994B262; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 07:58:50 -0500 (CDT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Hbyt0-0003br-74; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 08:58:50 -0400 Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 12:58:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Luis Machado Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com Subject: Re: [patch] "single step" atomic instruction sequences as a whole. Message-ID: <20070412125850.GA13780@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Luis Machado , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com References: <1173997454.4772.27.camel@localhost> <20070410204010.GB2056@caradoc.them.org> <1176379764.4434.16.camel@localhost> <20070412121528.GA11412@caradoc.them.org> <1176382440.4434.23.camel@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1176382440.4434.23.camel@localhost> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-04/txt/msg00163.txt.bz2 On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 09:53:59AM -0300, Luis Machado wrote: > +# A return value of 1 means that the software_single_step breakpoints > +# where inserted; 0 means they where not. Sorry, two little things: "were" instead of "where", and you need to rerun gdbarch.sh after changing it (this comment didn't get added to gdbarch.c). With those, the patch is OK to commit. Ulrich, I guess you should do it since Luis is with IBM? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery