From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7688 invoked by alias); 25 Jan 2013 19:00:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 7675 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Jan 2013 19:00:34 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_SPAMHAUS_DROP,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from service87.mimecast.com (HELO service87.mimecast.com) (91.220.42.44) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 18:59:43 +0000 Received: from cam-owa2.Emea.Arm.com (fw-tnat.cambridge.arm.com [217.140.96.21]) by service87.mimecast.com; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 18:59:41 +0000 Received: from [10.1.72.50] ([10.1.255.212]) by cam-owa2.Emea.Arm.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 25 Jan 2013 18:59:39 +0000 Message-ID: <5102D61B.7010609@arm.com> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:00:00 -0000 From: Marcus Shawcroft User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130106 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pedro Alves 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> <5102D5E2.8080405@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <5102D5E2.8080405@redhat.com> X-MC-Unique: 113012518594100701 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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/msg00645.txt.bz2 On 25/01/13 18:58, Pedro Alves wrote: > 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) > Ok, I'll re-spin without. /M