Re: [PATCH 3/4] 'catch syscall' feature -- XML support part

Eli Zaretskii
2008-11-05T04:22:37Z

> Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 17:35:44 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> Cc: sergiodj@linux.vnet.ibm.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>
> 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.

What happens if I have a list of syscalls that includes some which are
unsupported by my kernel? What would happen if I ask GDB to trace
those unsupported calls?

In the opposite case (a kernel that supports more syscalls than in the
list), I understand I get an error message if I request the syscall by
name, abut I should be able to request it by the number, right? (This
should be described in the manual, and perhaps also said in the error
message.)