From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16877 invoked by alias); 10 Sep 2014 15:22:35 -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 16857 invoked by uid 89); 10 Sep 2014 15:22:35 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS 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; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 15:22:34 +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 s8AFMNIv029000 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 10 Sep 2014 11:22:23 -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 s8AFMKAN014660; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 11:22:21 -0400 Message-ID: <54106CAC.5070409@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 15:22:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ulrich Weigand , Joel Brobecker CC: Peter Schauer , GDB Patches Subject: Re: eliminate deprecated_insert_raw_breakpoint. what's left. References: <201409101315.s8ADFTMq012223@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <201409101315.s8ADFTMq012223@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-09/txt/msg00322.txt.bz2 On 09/10/2014 02:15 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > Joel Brobecker wrote: >>> I've now got access to an AIX 6.1 machine and repeated the experiment -- >>> with the same result. No regressions when zapping exec_one_dummy_insn, >>> and in fact about 100 FAILs fixed. >>> >>> So I think we should probably just do it at this point. >> >> Agreed! Would you do the honors, or would you like me to? >> >> Thanks for doing the testing, Ulrich. > > I'll check it in shortly. Thanks guys! One down, two to go. :-) Thanks, Pedro Alves