From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 117752 invoked by alias); 17 May 2018 08:22:51 -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 117731 invoked by uid 89); 17 May 2018 08:22:48 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:978 X-HELO: mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (HELO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com) (148.163.158.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 May 2018 08:22:46 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098420.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w4H8FBrL044764 for ; Thu, 17 May 2018 04:22:45 -0400 Received: from e06smtp12.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp12.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.108]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2j13ucwy00-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 17 May 2018 04:22:44 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp12.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 17 May 2018 09:22:43 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.198) by e06smtp12.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.142) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Thu, 17 May 2018 09:22:41 +0100 Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.61]) by b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id w4H8MeiJ7209252 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 17 May 2018 08:22:40 GMT Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id A89B211C069; Thu, 17 May 2018 09:13:54 +0100 (BST) Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98D6011C04C; Thu, 17 May 2018 09:13:54 +0100 (BST) Received: from oc3748833570.ibm.com (unknown [9.164.171.22]) by d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 May 2018 09:13:54 +0100 (BST) Received: by oc3748833570.ibm.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B7DD3D802CA; Thu, 17 May 2018 10:22:39 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] [PowerPC] Recognize isa205 in linux core files To: pedromfc@linux.vnet.ibm.com (Pedro Franco de Carvalho) Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 10:22:00 -0000 From: "Ulrich Weigand" Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <87sh6ruxt7.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> from "Pedro Franco de Carvalho" at May 16, 2018 05:53:40 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 18051708-0008-0000-0000-000004F7687B X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 18051708-0009-0000-0000-00001E8BDBE6 Message-Id: <20180517082239.B7DD3D802CA@oc3748833570.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2018-05-17_04:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1709140000 definitions=main-1805170077 X-SW-Source: 2018-05/txt/msg00372.txt.bz2 Pedro Franco de Carvalho wrote: > Ulrich Weigand writes: > > > Maybe this routine should now be moved to ppc-linux-tdep.c ... > > > >> + CORE_ADDR hwcap = 0; > >> + > >> + target_auxv_search (target, AT_HWCAP, &hwcap); > >> + > >> + features.isa205 = ppc_linux_has_isa205 (hwcap); > > > > ... so it can be reused here? > > > > Otherwise this looks OK to me. > > Should the routine take a struct target_ops * parameter, so that > core_read_description can pass its target (for calling > target_auxv_search)? In this case all the calls in ppc_linux_nat.c would > also have to be updated. Right, I guess that makes sense. (Another question is why ppp-linux-nat.c repeats this call all the time, maybe it would be better to cache the result per inferior ... But that's certainly a separate issue.) Bye, Ulrich -- Dr. Ulrich Weigand GNU/Linux compilers and toolchain Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com