From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 587 invoked by alias); 22 Oct 2009 02:46:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 576 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Oct 2009 02:46:18 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.33.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 02:46:13 +0000 Received: from spaceape9.eur.corp.google.com (spaceape9.eur.corp.google.com [172.28.16.143]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id n9M2kAth031895 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 03:46:10 +0100 Received: from ewy4 (ewy4.prod.google.com [10.241.103.4]) by spaceape9.eur.corp.google.com with ESMTP id n9M2k7P8002284 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:46:08 -0700 Received: by ewy4 with SMTP id 4so89761ewy.37 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:46:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.88.67 with SMTP id z45mr3286299wee.112.1256179567718; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:46:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4ADCDBB7.2050500@vmware.com> References: <4ADB9759.7060305@vmware.com> <20091018225134.GA30546@caradoc.them.org> <4ADCA53C.2080703@vmware.com> <20091019183724.GA17923@caradoc.them.org> <4ADCBF6B.9050309@vmware.com> <20091019212817.GB3401@caradoc.them.org> <4ADCDBB7.2050500@vmware.com> Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 02:46:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Seems like a bug in target_read_stack / dcache_xfer_memory? From: Doug Evans To: Michael Snyder Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-System-Of-Record: true 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: 2009-10/txt/msg00511.txt.bz2 On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Michael Snyder wrote: > Anyway, yes, that's what it does. =A0dcache returns zero, > and memory_xfer_partial bails out instead of trying the > next target down the target stack. Hi. If it will help I'll play with your testcase tomorrow. I'll also volunteer to make a pass through the code and add some comments. [I mention that just in case you or someone is already in the process of doing that.]