From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 128649 invoked by alias); 6 Feb 2017 12:55:59 -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 128639 invoked by uid 89); 6 Feb 2017 12:55:58 -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=H*UA:Mac, H*i:sk:38fe05a, H*f:sk:38fe05a X-HELO: mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (HELO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com) (148.163.156.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 06 Feb 2017 12:55:57 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098394.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.20/8.16.0.20) with SMTP id v16Crr2i047569 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 07:55:56 -0500 Received: from e36.co.us.ibm.com (e36.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.154]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 28emdjwdbj-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 06 Feb 2017 07:55:56 -0500 Received: from localhost by e36.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 05:55:54 -0700 Received: from d03dlp02.boulder.ibm.com (9.17.202.178) by e36.co.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.136) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 05:55:51 -0700 Received: from b01cxnp23032.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01cxnp23032.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.198.27]) by d03dlp02.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E3FA3E40041; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 05:55:51 -0700 (MST) Received: from b01ledav03.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.108]) by b01cxnp23032.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id v16Ctomn15991212; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 12:55:50 GMT Received: from b01ledav03.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6CDCB204E; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 07:55:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from otta.local (unknown [9.85.151.48]) by b01ledav03.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58281B204D; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 07:55:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] [ppc64] Add POWER8 atomic sequences single-stepping support To: Luis Machado , Edjunior Barbosa Machado , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <1486350182-13993-1-git-send-email-emachado@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <38fe05a1-770c-e9f1-ecc0-042dfe0a470e@codesourcery.com> Cc: uweigand@de.ibm.com From: Peter Bergner Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2017 12:55:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <38fe05a1-770c-e9f1-ecc0-042dfe0a470e@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 17020612-0020-0000-0000-00000B490720 X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00006566; HX=3.00000240; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000202; SDB=6.00817982; UDB=6.00399673; IPR=6.00595442; BA=6.00005118; NDR=6.00000001; ZLA=6.00000005; ZF=6.00000009; ZB=6.00000000; ZP=6.00000000; ZH=6.00000000; ZU=6.00000002; MB=3.00014198; XFM=3.00000011; UTC=2017-02-06 12:55:53 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 17020612-0021-0000-0000-000059DC5A6D Message-Id: <380e654e-bbd8-529f-9dc9-b988dcf377b8@vnet.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2017-02-06_05:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1612050000 definitions=main-1702060129 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-02/txt/msg00118.txt.bz2 On 2/6/17 4:03 AM, Luis Machado wrote: > On 02/05/2017 09:03 PM, Edjunior Barbosa Machado wrote: > Maybe LOAD_RESERVE_MASK? LR_MASK with a comment? Please not LR_MASK, since it could be confusing given we have an LR register. Peter