On 12/23/2010 12:22 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> I haven't seen the patch, so I cannot comment specifically, but I think
> that you are using the wrong reasons to try to justify your initial
> patch.  It does not matter whether sparc or hppa support displaced
> stepping or not. They might - it's not far-fetched for sparc, for
> instance.  Or other platforms where it matters might be contributed
> in the future, and they could need displaced stepping too.  By letting
> your patch in, we would be making it harder for other platforms to
> implement it.  It would feel like sweeping the dust under the carpet...

OK.  I have to try the second approach, which is 1) exposing displaced
stepping state to tdep, and 2) take displaced stepping state into
account when determining the mode.

Regression tested on armv7-unknown-linux-gnueabi.  Is it OK?

-- 
Yao (齐尧)