From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 57708 invoked by alias); 30 Nov 2015 20:21:52 -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 57693 invoked by uid 89); 30 Nov 2015 20:21:51 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: usplmg20.ericsson.net Received: from usplmg20.ericsson.net (HELO usplmg20.ericsson.net) (198.24.6.45) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 20:21:50 +0000 Received: from EUSAAHC006.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.90]) by usplmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 55.34.06940.5DFAC565; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 21:21:42 +0100 (CET) Received: from [142.133.110.95] (147.117.188.8) by smtp-am.internal.ericsson.com (147.117.188.92) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.248.2; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 15:21:47 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/10] Support software single step and conditional breakpoints on ARM in GDBServer. References: <1448287968-12907-1-git-send-email-antoine.tremblay@ericsson.com> <868u5jx06b.fsf@gmail.com> <56585795.7020601@ericsson.com> To: GDB From: Antoine Tremblay Message-ID: <565CAFDA.2060000@ericsson.com> Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 20:21:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56585795.7020601@ericsson.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-11/txt/msg00614.txt.bz2 On 11/27/2015 08:16 AM, Antoine Tremblay wrote: > On 11/27/2015 04:26 AM, Yao Qi wrote: >> Antoine Tremblay writes: >> >>> Patches 1 and 2 fix general issues in the software single step >>> control flow. >> >> I think patches #1, #2 and #4 can go in now, since they are quite >> general. > > Hi, yes I was thinking about pushing 1-2 also. > > #4 however feels like it's part of a group with #3 and 5, together they > cleanup the whole situation as these reinsert_addr implementations are > directly related to the thread_event support that was removed. Otherwise > we leave some inconsistent dead code there... > > So I could push [1-5] if that's ok with you ? > > Patches [1-5] are pushed in