From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 103974 invoked by alias); 21 May 2015 20:23:16 -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 103167 invoked by uid 89); 21 May 2015 20:23:15 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no 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; Thu, 21 May 2015 20:23:15 +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 t4LKNBqZ031731 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 21 May 2015 16:23:12 -0400 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 t4LKNA2v025886; Thu, 21 May 2015 16:23:11 -0400 Message-ID: <555E3EAE.2080107@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 20:23:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yao Qi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] Implements aarch64 process record and reverse debugging support References: <1432041752-4638-1-git-send-email-yao.qi@linaro.org> <1432041752-4638-3-git-send-email-yao.qi@linaro.org> In-Reply-To: <1432041752-4638-3-git-send-email-yao.qi@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-05/txt/msg00555.txt.bz2 On 05/19/2015 02:22 PM, Yao Qi wrote: > * linux-record.h (struct linux_record_tdep): Add two more syscall > argument fields. Off by one? Looked fine to me otherwise (I just skimmed it; didn't really look at anything aarch64 specific in detail). Thanks, Pedro Alves