Unreviewed patch

Unreviewed patch

[Ulrich Weigand]

[PATCH] Re: PTRACE_EVENT_CLONE patch causing deadlock?
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2004-07/msg00445.html

Thanks,
Ulrich

-- 
  Dr. Ulrich Weigand
  weigand@informatik.uni-erlangen.de

Re: Unreviewed patch

[Michael Snyder]

Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> [PATCH] Re: PTRACE_EVENT_CLONE patch causing deadlock?
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2004-07/msg00445.html
> 
> Thanks,
> Ulrich
> 

It certainly seems like the right thing to do, but I'd
like to hear from Daniel or Mark.

Michael

Re: Unreviewed patch

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 07:10:24PM +0000, Michael Snyder wrote:
> Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> >[PATCH] Re: PTRACE_EVENT_CLONE patch causing deadlock?
> >http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2004-07/msg00445.html
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Ulrich
> >
> 
> It certainly seems like the right thing to do, but I'd
> like to hear from Daniel or Mark.

Sorry for getting the two threads mixed up - I approved this shortly
after he pinged it.

I never tested that code path; you can't get their with POSIX threads,
just with clone.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz

Re: Unreviewed patch

[Kevin Buettner]

On Sep 11,  6:15pm, Michal Ludvig wrote:

> >>gdb/ChangeLog
> >>	* x86-64-tdep.c (_initialize_x86_64_tdep): Don't use hard-coded
> >>	mach constants.
> >>
> >>It's almost obvious, but I'm asking for permission to apply..
> > 
> > 
> > I'm not the maintainer of this file, but it looks good to me.
> 
> Nobody is. Regarding to MAINTAINERS file, any maintainer can approve 
> changes to x86-64 target.

Okay, approved then.

Kevin

Re: Unreviewed patch

[Michal Ludvig]

Kevin Buettner wrote:
> On Sep 11,  6:15pm, Alan Modra wrote:
> 
>>I had a gdb patch buried in
>>http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-08/msg00964.html
>>but apparently it was buried too deeply.
>>
>>Here's a revised version, that also removes the silly bfd_lookup_arch
>>call.
>>
>>gdb/ChangeLog
>>	* x86-64-tdep.c (_initialize_x86_64_tdep): Don't use hard-coded
>>	mach constants.
>>
>>It's almost obvious, but I'm asking for permission to apply..
> 
> 
> I'm not the maintainer of this file, but it looks good to me.

Nobody is. Regarding to MAINTAINERS file, any maintainer can approve 
changes to x86-64 target.

Michal Ludvig
-- 
* SuSE CR, s.r.o     * mludvig@suse.cz
* +420 2 9654 5373   * http://www.suse.cz

Re: Unreviewed patch

[Kevin Buettner]

On Sep 11,  6:15pm, Alan Modra wrote:

> I had a gdb patch buried in
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-08/msg00964.html
> but apparently it was buried too deeply.
> 
> Here's a revised version, that also removes the silly bfd_lookup_arch
> call.
> 
> gdb/ChangeLog
> 	* x86-64-tdep.c (_initialize_x86_64_tdep): Don't use hard-coded
> 	mach constants.
> 
> It's almost obvious, but I'm asking for permission to apply..

I'm not the maintainer of this file, but it looks good to me.

Kevin

Unreviewed patch

[Alan Modra]

I had a gdb patch buried in
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-08/msg00964.html
but apparently it was buried too deeply.

Here's a revised version, that also removes the silly bfd_lookup_arch
call.

gdb/ChangeLog
	* x86-64-tdep.c (_initialize_x86_64_tdep): Don't use hard-coded
	mach constants.

It's almost obvious, but I'm asking for permission to apply..

Index: gdb/x86-64-tdep.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/x86-64-tdep.c,v
retrieving revision 1.26
diff -u -p -r1.26 x86-64-tdep.c
--- gdb/x86-64-tdep.c	24 Aug 2002 00:21:35 -0000	1.26
+++ gdb/x86-64-tdep.c	29 Aug 2002 02:49:08 -0000
@@ -1144,7 +1144,7 @@ _initialize_x86_64_tdep (void)
   }
 
   tm_print_insn = gdb_print_insn_x86_64;
-  tm_print_insn_info.mach = bfd_lookup_arch (bfd_arch_i386, 3)->mach;
+  tm_print_insn_info.mach = bfd_mach_x86_64;
 
   /* Add the variable that controls the disassembly flavour.  */
   {

-- 
Alan Modra
IBM OzLabs - Linux Technology Centre