>>>> >tramp->insn is a ULONGEST.  Both of these should probably be ULONGEST
>>>> >also.
>>
>>> 
>>> changed to ->insn[0]
> 
> 
> I was more concerned about the CORE_ADDR.

Ah, "both".

>>>>>> >>>+	  if (tramp->insn[i] == 0)
>>>>>> >>>+	    return func;
>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >So zeros in tramp->insn mark the end of the sequence?  Should document
>>>> >that, zeros are valid instructions and some bizarre architecture might
>>>> >use one as a syscall trap.
>>
>>> 
>>> Added TRAMP_SENTINEL_INSN, it _isn't_ zero.
> 
> 
> The comment in the attached still says it's zero.  Zero and -1 are just
> about equally likely/unlikely, so I don't think it matters what the
> value is; I like having TRAMP_SENTINEL_INSN though.

(LONGEST)-1 is typically 0xffffffffffffffffLL so unless an ISA has a 
64-bit insn there won't be a clash.

>>> I don't know.
> 
> 
> Doesn't much matter then.

I committed the attached,

Andrew