From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11194 invoked by alias); 10 Feb 2016 16:52:47 -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 8992 invoked by uid 89); 10 Feb 2016 16:52:46 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= 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 Feb 2016 16:52:46 +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 (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 366BBC0C236B; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 16:52:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u1AGqiZv027825; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 11:52:44 -0500 Message-ID: <56BB6ADB.6070909@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 16:52:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yao Qi CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Clear *VAL in regcache_raw_read_unsigned References: <1455029644-6197-1-git-send-email-yao.qi@linaro.org> <86egckqztq.fsf@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <86egckqztq.fsf@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-02/txt/msg00307.txt.bz2 On 02/10/2016 04:45 PM, Yao Qi wrote: > Yao Qi writes: > >> Regression tests are still running. I'll push it in if there is no >> regression in tests. >> >> gdb/gdbserver: >> >> 2016-02-09 Yao Qi >> >> * regcache.c (regcache_raw_read_unsigned): Clear *VAL. > > Regression test on arm-linux is done. I push it in to both master and > 7.11 branch. Note that this function is only used for software single > step on arm-linux, so I run tests for arm-linux target. Isn't this broken on big endian? AFAICS, we're reading 32-bits into the higher 32-bits of a 64-bit variable. Thanks, Pedro Alves