Re: [PATCH 0/4] catch syscall -- try 3 -- Introduction

[teawater <teawater@gmail.com>]

This patch still not in?

On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 04:28, Sérgio Durigan Júnior
<sergiodj@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> Let's try again...
>
> sergio@miki # ping gdb-patches
>
> :-)
>
> On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 17:34 -0200, Sérgio Durigan Júnior wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Ping again.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 21:16 -0200, Sérgio Durigan Júnior wrote:
>> > Hello guys,
>> >
>> > Ping. :-)
>> >
>> > []s
>> >
>> > On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 03:45 -0200, Sérgio Durigan Júnior wrote:
>> > > Hi, it's me again :-)
>> > >
>> > > This is the third attempt to push this patch upstream :-). I've
>> > > basically reworked everything that you asked me, so I think things are
>> > > pretty much better now. Basically, the changes are:
>> > >
>> > > - Incremented the documentation (as suggested by Eli)
>> > >
>> > > - Fixed some bugs
>> > >
>> > > - Now you can catch as many syscalls as you want in one single command
>> > > (thanks to Tom Tromey!)
>> > >
>> > > - Create a "linux-tdep.[ch]", and put the common syscall functions there
>> > > (suggestion by Daniel Jacobowits)
>> > >
>> > > - Put the syscall_state inside lwp_info (as requested by Pedro)
>> > >
>> > > ... and other minor changes. Unfortunately (only for Eli, apparently), I
>> > > decided to keep the mechanism the way it is, so you'll still find
>> > > syscalls being stored as numbers in this version of the patch. That's
>> > > not personal; I only thought that people in general were happy with the
>> > > way I did.
>> > >
>> > > It's also good to mention that the support for x86_64 arch is almost
>> > > done (I have one little regression to solve). That's for you, Phil ;-).
>> > >
>> > > Ok, I'm tired (3:30am here) so I won't write too much. I'd appreciate
>> > > your review :-).
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > >
> --
> Sérgio Durigan Júnior
> Linux on Power Toolchain - Software Engineer
> Linux Technology Center - LTC
> IBM Brazil
>
>