From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31794 invoked by alias); 24 Dec 2013 10:05:06 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 31783 invoked by uid 89); 24 Dec 2013 10:05:05 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-vc0-f169.google.com Received: from mail-vc0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-vc0-f169.google.com) (209.85.220.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 10:05:05 +0000 Received: by mail-vc0-f169.google.com with SMTP id hu19so3421475vcb.0 for ; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 02:05:02 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.231.34 with SMTP id td2mr786421vdc.21.1387879502858; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 02:05:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.52.171.202 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 02:05:02 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 10:05:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] Extend handling of immediates on ARM's SystemTap SDT probe support From: Marcus Shawcroft To: Sergio Durigan Junior Cc: GDB Patches , Marcus Shawcroft , Yufeng Zhang Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-12/txt/msg00901.txt.bz2 On 23 December 2013 19:47, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: > Hi there, > > Continuing my series of fixes on the SystemTap SDT support for the > ARM/AArch64 architectures, this patch now extends how ARM's SDT specific > parser handles literal numbers (immediates). > > Currently, it only accepts "#" as the prefix. However, according to > "info '(as) ARM-Chars'", expressions can also have "$" and nothing as a > prefix. This patch extends the parser to accept those options. > > It is a rather trivial patch, and tests have proved that it works fine. > OK to apply? Looks fine to me. This is another example of where the ARM (A32/T32) syntax differs slightly from A64. Cheers /Marcus