From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5079 invoked by alias); 26 Nov 2013 09:46:22 -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 5049 invoked by uid 89); 26 Nov 2013 09:46:22 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_40,FREEMAIL_FROM,RDNS_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-vb0-f41.google.com Received: from Unknown (HELO mail-vb0-f41.google.com) (209.85.212.41) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 09:46:21 +0000 Received: by mail-vb0-f41.google.com with SMTP id w5so3832509vbf.28 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 01:46:13 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.58.210.66 with SMTP id ms2mr30197641vec.10.1385459173316; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 01:46:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.52.171.202 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 01:46:13 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <1385336092-19621-1-git-send-email-sergiodj@redhat.com> <52931DB7.6030205@arm.com> Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 10:13:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix for PR tdep/15653: Implement SystemTap SDT probe support for AArch64 From: Marcus Shawcroft To: Sergio Durigan Junior Cc: Marcus Shawcroft , GDB Patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg00803.txt.bz2 Hi On 25 November 2013 21:11, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: > I am not sure I completely understood your comment. Are you criticizing > the shared asm parser for ARM targets only, or the generic asm parser in > stap-probe.c? I assume it is the former. And I also fail to see why it > can be considered coincidental cohesion... The shared parser covers one > specific ARM assembly syntax, which is pretty similar to both 32- and > 64-bit ARM. > Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're actually against the way I've chosen > to share the code between the targets, right? Or am I missing something > here. If that's the case, I can try to come up with a simpler/cleaner > way to share this code... Suggestions are appreciated, of course :-). Sorry, I was not clear. I think the a64 and a32 parsers should be kept separate rather than using a common parser for a different, but similar syntax, thus avoiding the need to pass the flag that distinguishes the different syntaxes. Cheers /Marcus