From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1149 invoked by alias); 4 Nov 2008 22:23:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 1113 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Nov 2008 22:23:10 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 04 Nov 2008 22:22:28 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81A2810CE2; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 22:22:26 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67C3210C35; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 22:22:26 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KxUI5-0001UI-MG; Tue, 04 Nov 2008 17:22:25 -0500 Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 22:23:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?S=E9rgio_Durigan_J=FAnior?= , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] 'catch syscall' feature -- XML support part Message-ID: <20081104222225.GA5391@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , =?iso-8859-1?Q?S=E9rgio_Durigan_J=FAnior?= , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <1225773086.24532.55.camel@miki> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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/msg00059.txt.bz2 On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 11:19:36PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=E9rgio?= Durigan =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=FAnior?= > > Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 02:31:26 -0200 > > > > This is the part which adds XML support for the "catch syscall" feature. > > I decided to put the architecture's XML files here too, so that the > > architecture-independent part does not grow too much. > > Is the list of syscalls and their numbers kernel version dependent? > If it is, how will we go about maintaining these files? Fortunately, it is not. There are some exceptions in vendor-provided kernels, but there is a very strong incentive to not reuse or adjust syscall numbers. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery