From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10920 invoked by alias); 24 Feb 2016 20:49:13 -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 10828 invoked by uid 89); 24 Feb 2016 20:49:12 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=460 X-HELO: mailapp01.imgtec.com Received: from mailapp01.imgtec.com (HELO mailapp01.imgtec.com) (195.59.15.196) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 20:49:11 +0000 Received: from hhmail02.hh.imgtec.org (unknown [10.100.10.20]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 691C3B3A4B835; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 20:49:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [10.100.200.149] (10.100.200.149) by hhmail02.hh.imgtec.org (10.100.10.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.266.1; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 20:49:07 +0000 Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 20:49:00 -0000 From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: Luis Machado CC: Pedro Alves , , "Maciej W. Rozycki" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Handle MIPS Linux SIGTRAP siginfo.si_code values In-Reply-To: <56CDFE38.1000604@codesourcery.com> Message-ID: References: <1456332239-24007-1-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <56CDFB9B.3090708@redhat.com> <56CDFE38.1000604@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-SW-Source: 2016-02/txt/msg00758.txt.bz2 On Wed, 24 Feb 2016, Luis Machado wrote: > I think we should converge to a standard solution across all architectures in > the future rather than potentially perpetuate old non-standard ways. So the > movement towards returning well defined si_code values in the MIPS Linux > Kernel is a plus, even though we might not benefit from it right now. I'm in > favor of having the change to the kernel made. Not right now as in: "not earlier than in 2-3 months' time needed for a proper kernel release", which is when 4.6.0 is likely to happen? Well, I think it's not much waiting really unless you don't care, in which case you'll get it with your next regular kernel upgrade scheduled. Maciej