From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25292 invoked by alias); 17 May 2009 12:28:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 25283 invoked by uid 22791); 17 May 2009 12:28:14 -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) (209.85.142.189) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 17 May 2009 12:28:05 +0000 Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id a1so262920tib.12 for ; Sun, 17 May 2009 05:28:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.110.103.5 with SMTP id a5mr358174tic.42.1242563281693; Sun, 17 May 2009 05:28:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <200905171252.01243.pedro@codesourcery.com> References: <20090515184058.GA7326@basil.nowhere.org> <200905161735.35466.pedro@codesourcery.com> <200905171252.01243.pedro@codesourcery.com> Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 12:28:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: record mode supposed to work on x86_64-linux? From: Hui Zhu To: Pedro Alves , Andi Kleen Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-05/txt/msg00103.txt.bz2 Thank you very much Pedro and Andi. I changed the changelog to: 2009-05-17 Hui Zhu * i386-tdep.c (i386_process_record): Make it extern. (i386_gdbarch_init): Don't call set_gdbarch_process_record here. * i386-tdep.c (i386_process_record): Declare. * i386-linux-tdep.c (i386_linux_init_abi): Call set_gdbarch_process_record. And checked-in. Hui On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 19:52, Pedro Alves wrote: > On Sunday 17 May 2009 01:15:00, Hui Zhu wrote: >> Hi Pedro, >> >> What do you think about this one? > > I think it's good, thanks. > >> 2009-05-17 =A0Hui Zhu =A0 >> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 * i386-tdep.c (i386_process_record): Remove the static o= f it. >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 (i386_gdbarch_init): Remove the set_gdbarch_process_reco= rd. >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 * i386-tdep.c (i386_process_record): New extern. >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 * i386-linux-tdep.c (i386_linux_init_abi): Call >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 set_gdbarch_process_record. > > Please consider the alternative ChangeLog suggestions below instead. > >> =A0 =A0 =A0 * i386-tdep.c (i386_process_record): Remove the static of it. > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0* i386-tdep.c (i386_process_record): Make it extern. > >> =A0 =A0 =A0 (i386_gdbarch_init): Remove the set_gdbarch_process_record. > > From this entry, it isn't clear what you're removing. =A0Actually, it > sounds like you're removing the function implementation. =A0Consider > instead: > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0(i386_gdbarch_init): Remove the set_gdbarch_process_record= call. > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 ^^^^ > > or even: > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0(i386_gdbarch_init): Don't call set_gdbarch_process_record= here. > > >> =A0 =A0 =A0 * i386-tdep.c (i386_process_record): New extern. > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0^ typo > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0* i386-tdep.h (i386_process_record): Declare. > > (`new extern' sounds like adding a new variable or function, > but you're just changing the linkage of an existing function.) > > -- > Pedro Alves >