From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11559 invoked by alias); 25 Nov 2013 15:24:31 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 11538 invoked by uid 89); 25 Nov 2013 15:24:27 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: rock.gnat.com Received: from Unknown (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 15:24:26 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC4F51161F4; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 10:24:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id DZjr2slgCVlb; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 10:24:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 580161161C6; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 10:24:53 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7C765E0D10; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 19:24:14 +0400 (RET) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 15:46:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Will Newton Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: gdbserver, aarch64: Zero out regs in aarch64_linux_set_debug_regs Message-ID: <20131125152414.GG3114@adacore.com> References: <20131125125128.GA3153@adacore.com> <20131125130250.GE3114@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg00782.txt.bz2 > >> > 2. The gdb-side patch in not part of the gdb_7_6-branch; > >> > is that what we want? > >> > >> Not really! I believed that the gdb patch had been committed to the > >> stable branch but later discovered that it hadn't. As the stable > >> branch appeared to be dormant I didn't follow up on it. Ideally both > >> patches should be applied and if we are going to do another release > >> I'm happy to cherry pick it across. > > > > Let's do that, then. I think it'll make better sense for the user, > > and it'll also be easier to describe the extent of the problem being > > fixed. > > Just to confirm - this patch should be applied to the gdb_7_6-branch in CVS? In the git repository, actually (CVS is closed, and I will be making the new release using the git repo). Thank you, -- Joel