c used with x86 host ?
Please try following the instructions at:
https://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/BuildingCrossGDBandGDBserver
Thanks,
Pedro Alves
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
On 05/20/2014 09:14 AM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> On 05/19/2014 08:13 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> On 05/19/2014 12:46 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>
>>>>> I couldn't actually find any arch that currently returns -ENODEV in
>>>>> the &quo
et)
> +{
> + if (!cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_TM))
> + return -ENODEV;
... unfortunately this will do the wrong thing.
Thanks,
--
Pedro Alves
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
On 05/15/2014 09:25 AM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> On 05/14/2014 04:45 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> On 05/14/14 06:46, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>> On 05/13/2014 10:43 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>>> On 05/05/14 08:54, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>>>> This patc
ng something to HWCAP too?
>
> Yes but it's in HWCAP2
That's fine.
--
Pedro Alves
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
On 05/14/14 06:46, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> On 05/13/2014 10:43 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> On 05/05/14 08:54, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>> This patch enables get and set of transactional memory related register
>>> sets through PTRACE_GETREGSET/PTRACE_SETREGSET interfa
no longer
exists in the @redhat.com domain.
--
Pedro Alves
On 05/05/14 08:54, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> This patch enables get and set of transactional memory related register
> sets through PTRACE_GETREGSET/PTRACE_SETREGSET interface by implementing
> four new powerpc specific reg
t, what does the
kernel return when the ptracer requests these registers and the
program is not in a transaction? Specifically I'm wondering whether
this follows the same semantics as the s390 port.
--
Pedro Alves
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing
On 04/28/2014 11:30 AM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> On 04/26/2014 05:12 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> On 04/02/2014 08:02 AM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>> This patch adds following new sets of ptrace request macros for
>>> transactional
>>> memory expandin
d VMX registers */
> PTRACE_GETTM_CVMXREGS
> PTRACE_SETTM_CVMXREGS
Urgh, we're _still_ adding specialized register specific calls?
Why aren't these exported as new register sets, accessible through
PTRACE_GETREGSET / PTRACE_SETREGSET? Tha
10 matches
Mail list logo