From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23792 invoked by alias); 1 May 2007 21:05:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 23778 invoked by uid 22791); 1 May 2007 21:05:02 -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; Tue, 01 May 2007 22:04:57 +0100 Received: from return.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by return.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 699F84B267; Tue, 1 May 2007 16:04:56 -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 3E4A94B262; Tue, 1 May 2007 16:04:56 -0500 (CDT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1HizWp-0006hy-8X; Tue, 01 May 2007 17:04:55 -0400 Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 21:05:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Mark Kettenis Cc: uweigand@de.ibm.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfc] [00/14] Push REGCACHE into target_fetch/store_registers Message-ID: <20070501210454.GA25485@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Mark Kettenis , uweigand@de.ibm.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200705010126.l411Q814016557@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> <200705012039.l41KdXI5012430@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200705012039.l41KdXI5012430@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> 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: 2007-05/txt/msg00018.txt.bz2 On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 10:39:34PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > 2. supply_gregset, supply_fpregset, fill_gregset or fill_fpregset > should really be replaced by something like > gdbarch_regset_from_core_section(). Well, maybe - the other main use is for Linux thread-db, where they don't actually deal with a core file. But it should still die somehow. > That said, this diff is great progress, and I think it should go in > ASAP. It's probably polite to give other responsable maintainers the > opportunity to react to the diff. So consider this an explicit ok for > the i387 targets. Everything I looked at looked right; OK by me too. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery