From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14898 invoked by alias); 30 Aug 2010 13:08:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 14699 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Aug 2010 13:08:45 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (83.163.83.176) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 13:08:41 +0000 Received: from glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o7UD7H5O025476; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:07:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id o7UD7Gm1022317; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:07:16 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 13:08:00 -0000 Message-Id: <201008301307.o7UD7Gm1022317@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: dan@codesourcery.com CC: yao@codesourcery.com, mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20100830125957.GW28036@caradoc.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 08:59:58 -0400) Subject: Re: [Patch,ARM] Next pc of sigreturn/rt_sigreturn syscall References: <20100824063854.GA29794@codesourcery.com> <201008241127.o7OBR38E024928@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20100824141253.GA13547@caradoc.them.org> <20100825030554.GC29794@codesourcery.com> <20100825143137.GG28036@caradoc.them.org> <4C762AE8.4080307@codesourcery.com> <20100830125957.GW28036@caradoc.them.org> 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: 2010-08/txt/msg00511.txt.bz2 > Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 08:59:58 -0400 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 04:50:48PM +0800, Yao Qi wrote: > > > Why did you remove the condition_true check? > > > > Because I noticed that condition_true always returns true if cond is 0xf > > (INST_NV). > > Sorry, you're right - I completely misread this. > > > 2010-08-26 Yao Qi > > > > * arm-linux-tdep.c (arm_linux_sigreturn_return_addr): New. > > (arm_linux_syscall_next_pc): New. > > (arm_linux_copy_svc): Use arm_linux_sigreturn_return_addr instead. > > (arm_linux_init_abi): Initialize syscall_next_pc. > > * arm-tdep.c (thumb_get_next_pc_raw): Get next pc of SWI in Thumb mode. > > (arm_get_next_pc_raw): Get next pc of SWI in ARM mode. > > * arm-tdep.h (struct gdbarch_tdep): Add a function pointer syscall_next_pc. > > Declare arm_frame_is_thumb. > > This is OK. Thanks! If Daniel is happy with this, I'm as well. Thanks, Mark