From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12140 invoked by alias); 28 Jan 2009 13:32:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 12130 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Jan 2009 13:32:02 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:31:57 +0000 Received: (qmail 12435 invoked from network); 28 Jan 2009 13:31:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 28 Jan 2009 13:31:55 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Doug Evans Subject: Re: [RFA] amd64 displaced stepping support Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:34:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20090126230013.5C7F01C72DE@localhost> <200901271715.49852.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200901281332.59986.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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: 2009-01/txt/msg00527.txt.bz2 On Wednesday 28 January 2009 08:39:47, Doug Evans wrote: > I'd like to add the needed interfaces. =A0I'm just not sure how long a > process that will be and I'd like to get started on exercising amd64 > non-stop functionality. =A0I'll pursue exporting the modrm_bytes arrays > and insn-length computation with binutils. Ok, thanks a lot. I don't think doing that should be a prerequisite for this patch. I just wanted to know if it's in your radar, and in case it was not, to have it recorded somewhere as a TODO item. > Ok to check in? Looks great to me. > [Modulo I need to clear the opcode/i386.h additions with binutils. > I'm not sure who to get approval from first.] The gdb bits are approved. A suggestion: don't add the macros/defines you were adding in opcode/i386.h just yet, but inline / add them in amd64-tdep.= c, and check in the gdb patch (pre-approved). Then, all the opcode changes can be made on top, separately (and incrementally, if desired). Sounds good to you? --=20 Pedro Alves