From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20157 invoked by alias); 5 Nov 2008 18:59:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 20124 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Nov 2008 18:59:42 -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 18:59:00 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1E2510CE5; Wed, 5 Nov 2008 18:58:57 +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 B2B7110814; Wed, 5 Nov 2008 18:58:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Kxnai-00039g-Qw; Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:58:56 -0500 Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:59:00 -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: <20081105185856.GA10838@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> <20081105145449.GA26401@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/msg00085.txt.bz2 On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 08:43:02PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > We could, but that would be second best, IMO. It would be better to > make the abstraction less Unix-centric. I don't think that Windows API calls belong in "catch syscall". It's not like other platforms don't provide system services in userspace too; but that's a different debugger feature than this one. I wouldn't call the abstraction Unix-centric. Classic Mac OS did the same thing; I believe the Amiga OS did too. A better example might be Hurd, which uses system calls in the same way - but primarily to facilitate inter-program communication to the servers providing system services. There's scope for a debugger to trace system services separately from system calls. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery