From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-59765-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 17438 invoked by alias); 8 Nov 2008 19:31:27 -0000
Received: (qmail 17346 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Nov 2008 19:31:26 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 08 Nov 2008 19:30:49 +0000
Received: from brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) 	by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id mA8JUQKe021401; 	Sat, 8 Nov 2008 20:30:26 +0100 (CET)
Received: (from kettenis@localhost) 	by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id mA8JUN5Y011721; 	Sat, 8 Nov 2008 20:30:23 +0100 (CET)
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2008 19:31:00 -0000
Message-Id: <200811081930.mA8JUN5Y011721@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
To: sergiodj@linux.vnet.ibm.com
CC: eliz@gnu.org, drow@false.org, bauerman@br.ibm.com,         gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <1225892021.32321.58.camel@miki> (message from 	=?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=E9rgio?= Durigan =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=FAnior?= on Wed, 05 	Nov 2008 11:33:41 -0200)
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] 'catch syscall' feature -- 	Architecture-independent	part
References: <1225773079.24532.52.camel@miki> <ubpwvureh.fsf@gnu.org> 	 <1225836687.20764.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> <uvdv3t9ny.fsf@gnu.org> 	 <20081104223421.GC5391@caradoc.them.org>  <ur65qu7ov.fsf@gnu.org> <1225892021.32321.58.camel@miki>
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2008-11/txt/msg00156.txt.bz2

> From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=E9rgio?= Durigan =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=FAnior?= <sergiodj@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:33:41 -0200
> 
> On Wed, 2008-11-05 at 06:18 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> > I'd like us very much to have some higher-level abstraction of a
> > syscall in target-independent code, than just a number.  Can we do
> > that, please?
> 
> I'm sorry about my bad design assumptions, but that just sounded good
> for me by the time I was developing. I think we can do the higher-level
> abstraction that you are asking, but I'd like you to please describe in
> more details how this abstraction would be, or even better, if that's
> not asking too much you could take the code I did and implement
> something better :-).
> 
> I'm sorry about these assumptions I've made, again.

I think the assumption that system calls are numbered is pretty
reasonable.  I have yet to encounter an OS that doesn't have them.