From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-65232-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 24368 invoked by alias); 7 Jul 2009 18:43:45 -0000
Received: (qmail 24357 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Jul 2009 18:43:45 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 07 Jul 2009 18:43:39 +0000
Received: from brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost [127.0.0.1]) 	by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n67IhIFd027435; 	Tue, 7 Jul 2009 20:43:18 +0200 (CEST)
Received: (from kettenis@localhost) 	by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n67IhIdV005570; 	Tue, 7 Jul 2009 20:43:18 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 18:43:00 -0000
Message-Id: <200907071843.n67IhIdV005570@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
To: jan.kratochvil@redhat.com
CC: uweigand@de.ibm.com, drow@false.org, tromey@redhat.com,         gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <20090707182203.GA24153@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> (message 	from Jan Kratochvil on Tue, 7 Jul 2009 20:22:04 +0200)
Subject: Re: [patch] Fix i386 memory-by-register access on amd64
References: <200907071624.n67GO6bj015890@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> <200907071759.n67HxhcF026713@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20090707182203.GA24153@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net>
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-07/txt/msg00211.txt.bz2

> Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 20:22:04 +0200
> From: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
> 
> On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:59:43 +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > But then I don't understand Jan's diff at all.  Linux has its own
> > implementation for TARGET_OBJECT_MEMORY in linux-nat.c.  Why isn't
> > that one used?
> 
> Expecting the same problem must affect even non-Linux ptrace usage.  I will
> move it to linux-nat.c if you think so.

I suppose I should have been more specific.  You are trying to fix a
bug that you see on Linux isn't it?

And this fix should only be relevant for TARGET_OBJECT_MEMORY isn't
it?

But Linux has its own implementation for doing TARGET_OBJECT_MEMORY
xfers in linux_proc_xfer_partial.

So I don't understand how this change fixes anything on Linux.

Can you enlighten me here?