From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23172 invoked by alias); 22 Mar 2005 14:54:08 -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 23123 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2005 14:54:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 22 Mar 2005 14:54:02 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.50 #1 (Debian)) id 1DDklq-0005Rv-UP; Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:54:15 -0500 Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:54:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Jitendra Pawar Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch] gdbserver fails on 32-bit ppc rfs running in a-64 bit 2.6 linux kernel Message-ID: <20050322145414.GA20873@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Jitendra Pawar , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1111502650.4484.12.camel@ind> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i X-SW-Source: 2005-03/txt/msg00284.txt.bz2 On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 08:14:09PM +0530, Jitendra Pawar wrote: > On Tue, 2005-03-22 at 09:23 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 07:35:24PM +0530, Jitendra Pawar wrote: > > > > > > > > >On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 06:36:22PM +0530, Amit S. Kale 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. > > > > Amit's original issue is in gdbserver; how do any of the invalid GDB > > pids get sent over the wire to gdbserver? That shouldn't happen. > > > > So can I say that GDB never written pid with -1 value to gdbserver? OR > do I need to find only those statements form GDB that returns -1 to > gdbserver? If this is the case then whether replacing those '-1' with > '0' will be the solution for this? I don't know. But you're barking up the wrong tree; 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. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC