From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8617 invoked by alias); 5 Nov 2008 14:55:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 8531 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Nov 2008 14:55:35 -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; Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:54:53 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB9BD10CE6; Wed, 5 Nov 2008 14:54:50 +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 B528310814; Wed, 5 Nov 2008 14:54:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KxjmT-0006wm-Rh; Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:54:49 -0500 Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:55:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: bauerman@br.ibm.com, sergiodj@linux.vnet.ibm.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] 'catch syscall' feature -- Architecture-independent part Message-ID: <20081105145449.GA26401@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , bauerman@br.ibm.com, sergiodj@linux.vnet.ibm.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <1225773079.24532.52.camel@miki> <1225836687.20764.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20081104223421.GC5391@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/msg00079.txt.bz2 On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 06:18:24AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > This level is IMO uninteresting, because many important system > services on Windows are not in the kernel space. But those aren't system calls; the terminology I'm accustomed to is quite specific, a system call is a trap from user to kernel mode. Should we make the description of 'catch syscall' more clear to exclude other OS facilities? Trapping on other kinds of Windows events would be a nice feature, but I don't think it's this same feature. We have other kinds of catchpoints (e.g. for Ada exceptions); I think that's the right place to add Windows system services, if someone contributes an implementation to catch them. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery