From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24105 invoked by alias); 5 Nov 2008 01:02:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 24030 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Nov 2008 01:02:59 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from igw1.br.ibm.com (HELO igw1.br.ibm.com) (32.104.18.24) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 05 Nov 2008 01:02:08 +0000 Received: from d24relay01.br.ibm.com (unknown [9.8.31.16]) by igw1.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E22632C1AE for ; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 23:00:02 -0200 (BRDT) Received: from d24av01.br.ibm.com (d24av01.br.ibm.com [9.18.232.46]) by d24relay01.br.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.1) with ESMTP id mA511jhq3870942 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 22:01:45 -0300 Received: from d24av01.br.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d24av01.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id mA5125be024711 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 23:02:05 -0200 Received: from [9.8.9.146] ([9.8.9.146]) by d24av01.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mA51248a024706; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 23:02:05 -0200 Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] 'catch syscall' feature -- XML support part From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=E9rgio?= Durigan =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=FAnior?= To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <20081104223544.GD5391@caradoc.them.org> References: <1225773086.24532.55.camel@miki> <20081104222225.GA5391@caradoc.them.org> <20081104223544.GD5391@caradoc.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2008 01:02:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1225846916.32321.39.camel@miki> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2008-11/txt/msg00067.txt.bz2 On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 17:35 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 12:25:33AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Does this mean we can be sure no new syscalls will be added to the > > list, ever? > > Syscalls are continually added to the list. But you don't need to > know which ones are present on the current system - just to keep the > files up to date in current versions of GDB. Unknown syscalls should > be displayed by number but otherwise handled just like known ones, > I think. > > (General goal, not a statement on the patch; I haven't looked.) That's what the patch does, as far as I have tested. I may have missed something, of course. -- Sérgio Durigan Júnior Linux on Power Toolchain - Software Engineer Linux Technology Center - LTC IBM Brazil