From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9858 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2009 02:26:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 9423 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Jan 2009 02:26:25 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com (HELO ti-out-0910.google.com) (209.85.142.184) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 02:25:49 +0000 Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id d10so811319tib.12 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2009 18:25:46 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.110.62.4 with SMTP id k4mr2518210tia.17.1232072746801; Thu, 15 Jan 2009 18:25:46 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1229977697.27356.4.camel@miki> References: <1226987110.5454.31.camel@miki> <1227568560.18828.0.camel@miki> <1228851299.1697.0.camel@miki> <1229977697.27356.4.camel@miki> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 02:26:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] catch syscall -- try 3 -- Introduction From: teawater To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=E9rgio_Durigan_J=FAnior?= Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2009-01/txt/msg00369.txt.bz2 This patch still not in? On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 04:28, S=E9rgio Durigan J=FAnior wrote: > Let's try again... > > sergio@miki # ping gdb-patches > > :-) > > On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 17:34 -0200, S=E9rgio Durigan J=FAnior wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Ping again. >> >> Thanks. >> >> On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 21:16 -0200, S=E9rgio Durigan J=FAnior wrote: >> > Hello guys, >> > >> > Ping. :-) >> > >> > []s >> > >> > On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 03:45 -0200, S=E9rgio Durigan J=FAnior 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 a= re >> > > 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 comma= nd >> > > (thanks to Tom Tromey!) >> > > >> > > - Create a "linux-tdep.[ch]", and put the common syscall functions t= here >> > > (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, >> > > > -- > S=E9rgio Durigan J=FAnior > Linux on Power Toolchain - Software Engineer > Linux Technology Center - LTC > IBM Brazil > >