From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from nommos.sslcatacombnetworking.com (nommos.sslcatacombnetworking.com [67.18.224.114]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A6E7DDE40 for ; Tue, 29 May 2007 23:20:41 +1000 (EST) In-Reply-To: <1180429370.19517.142.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20070529064531.D874CDDF70@ozlabs.org> <1180429370.19517.142.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: From: Kumar Gala Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 2/5] powerpc: Cleanup ptrace bits Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 08:19:42 -0500 To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Paul Mackerras , Anton Blanchard , ulrich.weigand@de.ibm.com List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On May 29, 2007, at 4:02 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 16:45 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: >> >> This patch cleans that up a bit by having a ptrace-common.h which >> contains >> really common code (and makes a lot more code common), and >> ptrace-ppc32.h and >> ptrace-ppc64.h files that contain the few remaining different bits. > > Hrm.. we do have a subtle difference in vrregs that I've missed.. I'll > respin tomorrow. It looks like we don't store the VRSAVE register > at the > same place on 32 and 64 bits... yuck. I need to double check tomorrow. That's bad. We really should have VRSAVE in the same location for both. (wondering if GDB expects it a different locations on 32 vs 64- bits.) - k