From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6842 invoked by alias); 30 Jun 2014 10:55:21 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 6826 invoked by uid 89); 30 Jun 2014 10:55:17 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 10:55:15 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s5UAt9RE024483 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 30 Jun 2014 06:55:10 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s5UAt7pG005267; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 06:55:08 -0400 Message-ID: <53B1420A.40501@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 10:55:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ajit Kumar Agarwal CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , Michael Eager , Vinod Kathail , Vidhumouli Hunsigida , Nagaraju Mekala Subject: Re: [Patch, microblaze]: Fix for remote G Packet message too long error for baremetal. References: <53A023B1.5000105@redhat.com> <859f27cb-8c46-46c1-9625-7287c60f3ae9@BY2FFO11FD007.protection.gbl> <53A1ABF0.9080004@redhat.com> <74281fd5-518a-4d7f-977a-6fa1320f6db9@BY2FFO11FD016.protection.gbl> <53A1B61F.9080803@redhat.com> <736c2e0d-6ff1-40c3-8120-dc6f5d91e6b1@BL2FFO11FD052.protection.gbl> <53A8290A.1050701@redhat.com> <53A94147.4050700@redhat.com> <57ebe4b0-83eb-4208-9778-472ecf0048d4@BY2FFO11FD038.protection.gbl> <53A96993.5040804@redhat.com> <109c35c1-e2f6-430f-9235-c6c82a93daf1@BL2FFO11FD009.protection.gbl> <53A97330.4080708@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-06/txt/msg00953.txt.bz2 On 06/30/2014 11:32 AM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote: > Signed-off-by:Ajit Agarwal ajitkum@xilinx.com > >> > In this case is it correct to say >> > If (tdesc == NULL) >> > tdesc = tdesc_microblaze; >> > >> > instead of tdesc_microblaze_with_stack_protect? >>> >>Yes. > Instead of tdesc_microblaze_with_stack_protect if I use tdesc_microblaze the "G Packet message is too long" error is not resolved. Then it sounds like the G packet size guesses you're adding aren't actually triggering. Why? > The patch is unchanged with tdesc_microblaze_stack_protect. -- Pedro Alves