From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18751 invoked by alias); 23 Mar 2005 15:43:38 -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 18696 invoked from network); 23 Mar 2005 15:43:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 23 Mar 2005 15:43:30 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.50 #1 (Debian)) id 1DE81O-0002nO-Bs; Wed, 23 Mar 2005 10:43:50 -0500 Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 15:43:00 -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: <20050323154349.GA10703@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> <20050322145414.GA20873@nevyn.them.org> <1111571829.3323.12.camel@ind> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1111571829.3323.12.camel@ind> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i X-SW-Source: 2005-03/txt/msg00287.txt.bz2 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? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC