From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-77199-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 4651 invoked by alias); 23 Dec 2010 19:52:41 -0000
Received: (qmail 4643 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Dec 2010 19:52:40 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.0 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_SOFTFAIL
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mtaout23.012.net.il (HELO mtaout23.012.net.il) (80.179.55.175)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Dec 2010 19:52:36 +0000
Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LDW00M00CEE1300@a-mtaout23.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Thu, 23 Dec 2010 21:52:34 +0200 (IST)
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.229.167.122]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LDW00LV7CJLTZ60@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Thu, 23 Dec 2010 21:52:34 +0200 (IST)
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 20:30:00 -0000
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [doc] Remote protocol: undocumented return value for 'p' and 'g'
In-reply-to: <201012231913.08466.pedro@codesourcery.com>
To: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Message-id: <83sjxoe0ac.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <201012231913.08466.pedro@codesourcery.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-12/txt/msg00444.txt.bz2

> From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
> Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 19:13:08 +0000
> 
> It's intended usage is in the context of inspecting tracepoints, to
> report "the register exists, but I don't know its value, because I
> haven't collected it."
> 
> (We actually have a local series of 60 or so (and counting)
> trace debugging related patches that actually make use of
> this mechanism).
> 
> Okay to apply?

Yes, thanks.

> +literal @samp{x}'s in place of the register data digits, to indicate
> +the corresponding register has not been collected, thus its value is

"... to indicate that the corresponding register ..."

> +registers 0 and 2 have not been collected, while registers 1 and 3
> +have been collected, and have value zero each:
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"and both have zero value"