From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21158 invoked by alias); 28 Jan 2009 14:34:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 21150 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Jan 2009 14:34:59 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:34:50 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 409EE105BB for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:34:48 +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 2A01E10598 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:34:48 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LSBV9-0003r1-Hv for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:34:47 -0500 Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:37:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] amd64 displaced stepping support Message-ID: <20090128143447.GA14440@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20090126230013.5C7F01C72DE@localhost> <20090127172730.GA3749@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: 2009-01/txt/msg00528.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 03:31:38PM -0800, Doug Evans wrote: > I don't disagree that libopcodes is a reasonable place. > > I'm assuming by "example of this" you're refering to > branch_delay_insns, target, target2, etc. Right? This is great > stuff, but it's in a struct named "disassemble_info". :-) IWBN if > libopcodes could provide a more generic interface, and long term an > interface more suitable to general use (i.e. not restricted to the > confines of gdb/binutils releases). Oh, yes. Completely agreed - although I think it's going to look a lot like a disassembler, anyway. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery