From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18315 invoked by alias); 16 Oct 2008 12:37:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 18307 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Oct 2008 12:37:32 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:36:52 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC7A6108C6; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:36:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9570010009; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:36:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KqS5y-0008Ua-A7; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 08:36:50 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:37:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?S=E9rgio_Durigan_J=FAnior?= Cc: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] 'catch syscall' feature -- Architecture-independent part Message-ID: <20081016123650.GC31057@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?S=E9rgio_Durigan_J=FAnior?= , Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <1222798409.30389.23.camel@miki> <20081002211256.GO3665@adacore.com> <1223001252.9858.11.camel@miki> <20081003060629.GQ3665@adacore.com> <1223161515.5956.25.camel@miki> <20081006172136.GA3588@adacore.com> <1223778404.4729.49.camel@miki> <20081015054005.GA3647@adacore.com> <1224124550.27672.62.camel@miki> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1224124550.27672.62.camel@miki> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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: 2008-10/txt/msg00403.txt.bz2 On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:35:50AM -0200, Sérgio Durigan Júnior wrote: > Well, I took your patch and ran the testsuite here for both PPC and > PPC64 archs. Things seem to be OK! I wasn't able to reproduce this > regression you told; (I don't think so, but just in case...) maybe it's > an x86 issue? Or maybe this particular test is non-deterministic? I know I've seen random failures from this test before. I'll try the patch on x86. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery