From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-67587-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 32756 invoked by alias); 11 Oct 2009 03:21:27 -0000
Received: (qmail 32748 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Oct 2009 03:21:26 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com) (65.115.85.69)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 11 Oct 2009 03:21:22 +0000
Received: from mailhost3.vmware.com (mailhost3.vmware.com [10.16.27.45]) 	by smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 964AF13013; 	Sat, 10 Oct 2009 20:21:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.94.141] (msnyder-server.eng.vmware.com [10.20.94.141]) 	by mailhost3.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88E86CD9FB; 	Sat, 10 Oct 2009 20:21:21 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4AD14E21.4070501@vmware.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 03:21:00 -0000
From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20080411)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com>
CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [RFA] Fix probable typo in i386_process_record
References: <4ACFDBDC.1090500@vmware.com> <daef60380910092251u36ddb67ayfd3310268ca48e99@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <daef60380910092251u36ddb67ayfd3310268ca48e99@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-10/txt/msg00210.txt.bz2

Committed.

Hui Zhu wrote:
> I think this patch is OK.  Thanks a lot.
> 
> Hui
> 
> On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 08:57, Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com> wrote:
>> Hui, I'm *pretty* sure I got this right, but you'd better confirm:
>>
>>
>> 2009-10-09  Michael Snyder  <msnyder@vmware.com>
>>
>>        * i386-tdep.c (i386_process_record): Or-equals, not not-equals.
>>
>> Index: i386-tdep.c
>> ===================================================================
>> RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/i386-tdep.c,v
>> retrieving revision 1.288
>> diff -u -p -r1.288 i386-tdep.c
>> --- i386-tdep.c 28 Sep 2009 07:11:36 -0000      1.288
>> +++ i386-tdep.c 10 Oct 2009 00:58:09 -0000
>> @@ -4146,7 +4146,7 @@ reswitch:
>>        return -1;
>>       if (ir.mod == 3)
>>        {
>> -         ir.rm != ir.rex_b;
>> +         ir.rm |= ir.rex_b;
>>          if (ir.ot == OT_BYTE && !ir.regmap[X86_RECORD_R8_REGNUM])
>>            ir.rm &= 0x3;
>>          I386_RECORD_ARCH_LIST_ADD_REG (ir.rm);
>>
>>