From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26630 invoked by alias); 12 Dec 2006 12:31:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 26621 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Dec 2006 12:31:23 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.oarcorp.com (HELO mail.oarcorp.com) (216.186.189.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with SMTP; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:31:16 +0000 Received: (qmail 19943 invoked by uid 507); 12 Dec 2006 12:31:13 -0000 Received: from 192.168.1.3 by mail.oarcorp.com (envelope-from , uid 501) with qmail-scanner-1.25st (spamassassin: 3.1.1. perlscan: 1.25st. Clear:RC:1(192.168.1.3):. Processed in 0.03222 secs); 12 Dec 2006 12:31:13 -0000 X-Qmail-Scanner-Mail-From: joel.sherrill@oarcorp.com via mail.oarcorp.com X-Qmail-Scanner: 1.25st (Clear:RC:1(192.168.1.3):. Processed in 0.03222 secs Process 19937) Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.3?) (192.168.1.3) by mail.oarcorp.com with SMTP; 12 Dec 2006 12:31:13 -0000 Message-ID: <457EA110.7030302@oarcorp.com> Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:31:00 -0000 From: Joel Sherrill User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (X11/20061107) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Marn , Daniel Jacobowitz , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: psim stfiwx instruction patch Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 X-SW-Source: 2006-12/txt/msg00165.txt.bz2 Hi, This is in reference to the patch in: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2006-11/msg00243.html and your comments here: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2006-11/msg00315.html I don't have a whole lot to offer except that gcc now generates this instruction and the simulator needs it. The RTEMS test code which made gcc generate this instruction now run correctly. Those tests are not specifically of this instruction by itself but of an entire program where gcc generated it. So things are better with this patch than without. Without, you get an exception and die. With it, you run. If the comments stay, is the patch OK? --joel