From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28843 invoked by alias); 4 Nov 2008 22:36:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 28789 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Nov 2008 22:36:28 -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 22:35:46 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A653C10CE2; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 22:35:44 +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 8C0AA10C35; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 22:35:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KxUUy-0001f1-6y; Tue, 04 Nov 2008 17:35:44 -0500 Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 22:36:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: sergiodj@linux.vnet.ibm.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] 'catch syscall' feature -- XML support part Message-ID: <20081104223544.GD5391@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , sergiodj@linux.vnet.ibm.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <1225773086.24532.55.camel@miki> <20081104222225.GA5391@caradoc.them.org> 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/msg00065.txt.bz2 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.) -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery