From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3470 invoked by alias); 18 Dec 2009 19:44:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 3461 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Dec 2009 19:44:05 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 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; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:43:59 +0000 Received: from mailhost3.vmware.com (mailhost3.vmware.com [10.16.27.45]) by smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9472E131A6; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:43:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.20.94.141] (msnyder-server.eng.vmware.com [10.20.94.141]) by mailhost3.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A0F2CD90A; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:43:58 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4B2BDAEC.7090207@vmware.com> Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:44:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20090624) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hui Zhu CC: gdb-patches ml Subject: Re: [RFA] Prec x86 MMX 3DNow! SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3 SSE4 support References: <4B215151.6040608@vmware.com> <4B26825B.7000209@vmware.com> In-Reply-To: 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: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-12/txt/msg00264.txt.bz2 Sounds like this patch waits only for new test suites? Hui Zhu wrote: > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2009-10/msg00414.html > > this bug just reproduce in amd64 ubuntu 9.0.4 and i386 ubuntu 9.0.4 > that's gcc is 4.3.3. glibc is 2.9. > > In amd64 gcc 4.1.2 glibc 2.5 and i386 gcc 4.2.4 glibc 2.7, it cannot > be reproduced. > > I think this is a bug in corelow or gcore. > > Thanks, > Hui > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 02:22, Michael Snyder wrote: >> Hui Zhu wrote: >> >>> solib-precsave.exp, this fail is because the core solib error that I >>> report in before. >> Can you say more about that? >> >> I don't remember it, and it never fails for me (before or after >> this patch). >> >> >