From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-88519-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 8970 invoked by alias); 5 Mar 2012 15:51:45 -0000
Received: (qmail 8961 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Mar 2012 15:51:44 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (83.163.83.176)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 15:51:30 +0000
Received: from glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost [127.0.0.1])	by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q25FpOog016702;	Mon, 5 Mar 2012 16:51:24 +0100 (CET)
Received: (from kettenis@localhost)	by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.5/8.14.3/Submit) id q25FpNdL006582;	Mon, 5 Mar 2012 16:51:23 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 15:51:00 -0000
Message-Id: <201203051551.q25FpNdL006582@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
To: palves@redhat.com
CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, hjl.tools@gmail.com
In-reply-to: <4F54CE80.30204@redhat.com> (message from Pedro Alves on Mon, 05	Mar 2012 14:32:32 +0000)
Subject: Re: i387-tdep.c:i387_supply_xsave: Assert the xsave section buffer, is not NULL.
References: <4F21A489.2080200@redhat.com> <4F54CE80.30204@redhat.com>
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: 2012-03/txt/msg00141.txt.bz2

> Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 14:32:32 +0000
> From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
> 
> On 01/26/2012 07:07 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> 
> > 
> > I have a doubt in the xsave-in-corefile support bits.  There's
> > code in place to handle a NULL regs (as in no xsave contents to
> > work with), so I'm handling it as presently:
> > 
> > +
> > +     Note however, the case when REGS is NULL is a different case.
> > +     That case means we do not have access to the x87 states, so we
> > +     should mark the registers as unavailable (by supplying NULL).  */
> > +
> > 
> > but I can't figure out how would we ever get a NULL REGS there.  Is there a
> > convoluted path I missed?  amd64-linux-tdep.c unconditionally installs
> > amd64_linux_regset_sections as gdbarch_core_regset_sections
> > callback, and this includes the .reg-xstate section.
> > However, corelow.c:get_core_register_section bails early if
> > a section is not found in the core, never reaching regset->supply_regset
> > with a NULL `contents'.
> 
> 
> On 02/27/2012 06:48 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> > I'll post a separate RFC patch proposing to remove the NULL REGS handling
> 
> Here's what I'd like to check in, given the analysis quoted above.

I agree with your analysis.