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

[Sérgio Durigan Júnior <sergiodj at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>]

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