From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26350 invoked by alias); 29 Jul 2010 05:13:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 26340 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Jul 2010 05:13:46 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 29 Jul 2010 05:13:42 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o6T5DefX002281 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 29 Jul 2010 01:13:40 -0400 Received: from mesquite.lan ([10.3.113.3]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o6T5DdCF006539 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 29 Jul 2010 01:13:40 -0400 Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 05:13:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: gdb-rx-tdep: make RXO_branch more robust Message-ID: <20100728221339.59d9e580@mesquite.lan> In-Reply-To: <201007290229.o6T2T9rm023183@greed.delorie.com> References: <201007290229.o6T2T9rm023183@greed.delorie.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2010-07/txt/msg00537.txt.bz2 On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 22:29:09 -0400 DJ Delorie wrote: > > My next sim patch changes RXO_branch to not have a condition for > unconditional branches (as opposed to the "always true" condition). > Regardless, I think there's no need to check for RX_Operand_Condition > anyway - previously, it was the *only* value that type could be, for > RXO_branch. I'd change it to check for unconditional, but I don't > want to break things between this patch and the next. Ok? > > * rx-tdep.c (rx_analyze_prologue): Don't require branches to have > conditions. Okay. Kevin