From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3502 invoked by alias); 8 Feb 2010 19:45:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 3492 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Feb 2010 19:45:52 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Feb 2010 19:45:48 +0000 Received: (qmail 1330 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2010 19:45:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO caradoc.them.org) (dan@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 8 Feb 2010 19:45:47 -0000 Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 19:45:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: Updates support for breakpoints that generate SIGILL Message-ID: <20100208194543.GH9493@caradoc.them.org> References: <20100128215914.GB2813@caradoc.them.org> <201002081935.o18JZIMA023833@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201002081935.o18JZIMA023833@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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/msg00224.txt.bz2 On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 08:35:17PM +0100, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > Unfortunately this change broke Cell/B.E. debugging. > > The problem is that with the change, handle_inferior_event will now > *always* look up a regcache, even when the process has exited. > > Before the patch, the code has always taken care to avoid that; while > some targets don't mind, others will break (in particular, the Cell/B.E. > multi-arch target does). > > The patch below changes this to only look up the regcache when needed > (in particular, this implies the process is still there). > > Tested on Cell/B.E. (ppc32 and ppc64) with no regressions. > > Does this look OK to you? Sorry for the breakage. Yes, your fix looks good to me. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery