From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14143 invoked by alias); 4 Nov 2008 22:35:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 14089 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Nov 2008 22:35:05 -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 22:34:23 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19F1910CE2; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 22:34:22 +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 E932F10C35; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 22:34:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KxUTd-0001en-F1; Tue, 04 Nov 2008 17:34:21 -0500 Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 22:35:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Thiago Jung Bauermann , sergiodj@linux.vnet.ibm.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] 'catch syscall' feature -- Architecture-independent part Message-ID: <20081104223421.GC5391@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , Thiago Jung Bauermann , sergiodj@linux.vnet.ibm.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <1225773079.24532.52.camel@miki> <1225836687.20764.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> 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/msg00064.txt.bz2 On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 12:21:05AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > ... but from what you are saying it seems that in Windows it's > > different. What's the proper datatype to represent a syscall there? > > A symbol, I think. As far as I can tell, Windows has system calls just like other OS's do; as of Windows NT they were triggered by "int 2e" and the syscall number went in %eax. There's plenty of other levels of potential traceability in a Windows program than the system call, but I think that's the obvious one to map "catch syscall" on to. Although, I don't believe GDB will be able to catch Windows syscalls; I don't see a way to do it, anyway, but there's plenty I don't know about Windows. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery