From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13869 invoked by alias); 1 Feb 2010 19:46:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 13860 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Feb 2010 19:46:27 -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; Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:46:22 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FA1410DBA; Mon, 1 Feb 2010 19:46:20 +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 BC43A10848; Mon, 1 Feb 2010 19:46:19 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Nc2Dy-0008NO-Lq; Mon, 01 Feb 2010 14:46:18 -0500 Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:46:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, matz@suse.de Subject: Re: RFC: %ebp-based backtrace patch Message-ID: <20100201194618.GA32166@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, matz@suse.de References: <20090706183316.GA26074@caradoc.them.org> <200907062157.n66LvSVF007634@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20090707130040.GA11040@caradoc.them.org> <200907080901.n6891GVC029930@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20090708125330.GA29881@caradoc.them.org> <20091227165916.GA24409@caradoc.them.org> <200912272137.nBRLbJPq029640@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20091227220311.GA3174@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091227220311.GA3174@caradoc.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2010-02/txt/msg00027.txt.bz2 On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 05:03:11PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > Sure. Here's a version that passes signull.exp for me. I've tested this version and checked it in; there are no longer any regressions. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery