From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5581 invoked by alias); 16 Oct 2008 16:28:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 5571 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Oct 2008 16:27:59 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 16:27:24 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A9FC2A96E4; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:27:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 5HxA91XvCkQ5; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:27:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B8452A96DA; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:27:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 02575E7ACD; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 09:27:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 16:28:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?S=E9rgio_Durigan_J=FAnior?= , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] 'catch syscall' feature -- Architecture-independent part Message-ID: <20081016162719.GA3728@adacore.com> References: <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> <20081016123650.GC31057@caradoc.them.org> <20081016151644.GA12942@caradoc.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20081016151644.GA12942@caradoc.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i 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/msg00411.txt.bz2 > On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 08:36:50AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > 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. > > Looks fine here too. (relief). Thank you, guys. Patch now checked in. I intend to convert the remaining ones when I have a moment. Thanks again, -- Joel