From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6153 invoked by alias); 25 Jan 2013 18:59:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 6145 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Jan 2013 18:59:22 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_SPAMHAUS_DROP,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 18:58:47 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r0PIwhSL027666 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 25 Jan 2013 13:58:43 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r0PIwgfE017592; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 13:58:43 -0500 Message-ID: <5102D5E2.8080405@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 18:59:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130110 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Marcus Shawcroft CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] aarch64-tdep basic port. References: <51028E3D.4030708@arm.com> <5102C7C0.50209@redhat.com> <5102D4DB.6010802@arm.com> In-Reply-To: <5102D4DB.6010802@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 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: 2013-01/txt/msg00644.txt.bz2 On 01/25/2013 06:54 PM, Marcus Shawcroft wrote: > On 25/01/13 17:58, Pedro Alves wrote: > >> Okay. Seems odd to me to just be clear the low bits and >> doing nothing else if they're "reserved", instead of waiting >> until they do have some meaning (at which point GDB will >> necessarily need to learn to do something about them). Does >> actually end up seeing non-4 bytes instructions today somehow? > > It would be safe to remove this masking code today, if you prefer. I would. One place less for us to worry about if we want to change this interface before you define the bits. (I'll be looking at the gdbserver/native patches next) -- Pedro Alves