From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9634 invoked by alias); 14 Sep 2011 14:25:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 9623 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Sep 2011 14:25:48 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 14:25:35 +0000 Received: from nat-jpt.mentorg.com ([192.94.33.2] helo=PR1-MAIL.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1R3qP8-0004P1-Bm from Yao_Qi@mentor.com for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 07:25:34 -0700 Received: from [172.30.8.86] ([172.30.8.86]) by PR1-MAIL.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 14 Sep 2011 23:25:32 +0900 Message-ID: <4E70B958.40700@codesourcery.com> Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 15:39:00 -0000 From: Yao Qi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110906 Thunderbird/6.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pedro Alves CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] Displaced stepping across fork/vfork References: <4E6C04B3.90106@codesourcery.com> <201109121536.01756.pedro@codesourcery.com> <4E7086F0.8020902@codesourcery.com> <201109141232.29616.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <201109141232.29616.pedro@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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: 2011-09/txt/msg00257.txt.bz2 On 09/14/2011 07:32 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: >> > The past tense ("was executed") is better here. Copied your suggestion >> > directly. :) > You forgot to copy a couple "the"s though. :-) > Oops. I missed two "the" in the first line of comment. Added them. > Does the arm_displaced_step_fixup handler ever do more than > just adjusting the PC for syscalls? I see there's a ->cleanup > callback there that does some things with registers. If so, > we'll need to do more than just adjusting the PC of the child. > (A more general fix would run the fixup on the child too > instead.) > A general cleanup routine does some registers restores, but cleanup routines for svc (arm-linux-tdep.c:arm_linux_cleanup_svc and arm-tdep.c:cleanup_svc) only adjust PC. > Otherwise looks okay. > > On Wednesday 14 September 2011 11:50:24, Yao Qi wrote: >> > + regcache_write_pc (child_regcache, parent_pc); >> > + >> > + } > You have a spurious empty line here. I'll check in with these fixes. -- Yao (齐尧)