From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 60431 invoked by alias); 24 Feb 2016 14:44:27 -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 60420 invoked by uid 89); 24 Feb 2016 14:44:26 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 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, 24 Feb 2016 14:44:25 +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 (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A02447EBA1; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:44:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u1OEiMmv006511; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 09:44:23 -0500 Message-ID: <56CDC1C6.9040400@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:44:00 -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: Luis Machado , gdb-patches@sourceware.org CC: macro@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: [PATCH, v3] Expect SI_KERNEL or TRAP_BRKPT si_code values for MIPS breakpoint traps References: <1456179628-14249-1-git-send-email-lgustavo@codesourcery.com> <56CB8E9D.70605@redhat.com> <56CBBD44.8020808@codesourcery.com> <56CDA835.7030903@redhat.com> <56CDAE41.2050609@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <56CDAE41.2050609@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-02/txt/msg00730.txt.bz2 On 02/24/2016 01:21 PM, Luis Machado wrote: > Yes. We need to check the MIPS debug registers unconditionally and not > just when a meaningful si_code of TRAP_HWBKPT shows up. Yeah, though we won't be able to do that unconditionally, due to the s390 quirk. > Did you want that in the same patch or in a separate one? I was > attempting to address the software breakpoint issue for now, but it > seems i ended up with 2 problems now. :-) I see this as a single problem of a regression caused by the rely-on-si_code change. So I think we should fix it with a single patch. Give me a bit while I try an approach here. Thanks, Pedro Alves