From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9819 invoked by alias); 24 Mar 2005 13:42:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 9733 invoked from network); 24 Mar 2005 13:42:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO euclid.linsyssoft.com) (61.11.18.135) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 24 Mar 2005 13:42:15 -0000 Received: from ind (ind [192.168.1.10]) by euclid.linsyssoft.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j2ODbQSo014146 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 24 Mar 2005 19:07:26 +0530 Subject: Re: [patch] gdbserver fails on 32-bit ppc rfs running in a-64 bit 2.6 linux kernel From: Jitendra Pawar Reply-To: jitendra@linsyssoft.com To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: <20050323154349.GA10703@nevyn.them.org> References: <1110991758.5464.8.camel@ind> <20050316165705.GA7195@nevyn.them.org> <1111500324.4237.33.camel@ind> <20050322142322.GA18808@nevyn.them.org> <1111502650.4484.12.camel@ind> <20050322145414.GA20873@nevyn.them.org> <1111571829.3323.12.camel@ind> <20050323154349.GA10703@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: LinSysSoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:42:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1111671362.3340.67.camel@ind> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2005-03/txt/msg00296.txt.bz2 > > > Understood thanks. I believe that changing type of thread IDs to 'long > > long' in gdbserver code will work. In that case I need to update all > > places as you did it for changing type of thread IDs to 'unsigned long' > > few days back. Is it the fix for this? > > Why don't you explain exactly what you think is the problem, and > exactly why you need to double the size of thread IDs to fix it? > Sorry It was my mistake, I wanted to say 'long int' instead of 'long long '. and size of long int and unsigned int is same i.e. 64-bit. You have commited the patch named 'Support large thread IDs in gdbserver' at the beginning of this month. In this commit you changed the type of thread ID to unsigned int. One of the use of This commit is to support for 64-bit hosts and maintain consistency. The variable cont_thread is also declared as 'unsigned int' and 'cont_thread = -1' statement is still in the place. Now please see the Amit's comments: > > > > > > > > >> You have changed the data type of thread_resume::thread as well as cont_thread > > > > > > > > >> to unsigned long. "cont_thread = -1" and "(cont_thread > 0)" are still in > > > > > > > > >> place. How does this work? So believe that changing data type of thread IDs to 'long int' will be the fix for this. regards -Jitendra On Wed, 2005-03-23 at 10:43 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 03:27:09PM +0530, Jitendra Pawar wrote: > > > > > > > > >> The strtoul change in my patch was already present. Sorry about that. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> You have changed the data type of thread_resume::thread as well as cont_thread > > > > > > > > >> to unsigned long. "cont_thread = -1" and "(cont_thread > 0)" are still in > > > > > > > > >> place. How does this work? > > > > > > > > > > > > There are about 15 files in gdb source have statement pid_to_ptid (-1); > > > > > > which finally returns -1 to server. Is it OK to replace -1 with 0 ? I > > > > > > would like to know significance of returning pid -1, 0 and positive > > > > > > integer. > > > > > > > > whatever you need > > > to change, you should be doing it only within gdbserver. If you change > > > GDB to fix a problem in gdbserver, you're changing the remote protocol. > > > > Understood thanks. I believe that changing type of thread IDs to 'long > > long' in gdbserver code will work. In that case I need to update all > > places as you did it for changing type of thread IDs to 'unsigned long' > > few days back. Is it the fix for this? > > Why don't you explain exactly what you think is the problem, and > exactly why you need to double the size of thread IDs to fix it? >