From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21951 invoked by alias); 2 Nov 2012 16:42:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 21941 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Nov 2012 16:42:20 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_SPAMHAUS_DROP,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 02 Nov 2012 16:42:17 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qA2GgFQB008400 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 2 Nov 2012 12:42:15 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qA2GgDFU007879 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 2 Nov 2012 12:42:14 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Yao Qi Cc: Subject: Re: [RFC] MI notification on register changes References: <1350977008-28632-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <87lielqcba.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <509398D8.7060104@codesourcery.com> Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 16:42:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <509398D8.7060104@codesourcery.com> (Yao Qi's message of "Fri, 2 Nov 2012 17:56:40 +0800") Message-ID: <87zk30ot22.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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 X-SW-Source: 2012-11/txt/msg00048.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Yao" == Yao Qi writes: Tom> The register may be stored in memory, but it this case really ever Tom> represented as lval_memory in gdb? I thought the reason for Yao> Yes. We discussed this on irc a bit and I thought I'd email the list to keep the thread up-to-date. First, Yao sees that lval_memory on x86, but I don't see it on x86-64. I wonder whether it is a bug elsewhere. Second, Pedro pointed out this PR: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7574 ... which seems apropos. It seems that the best thing is a generic "target changed" notification for the reasons mentioned there. Tom