From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14587 invoked by alias); 11 Dec 2014 20:16:08 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 14577 invoked by uid 89); 11 Dec 2014 20:16:07 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,SPF_SOFTFAIL,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: e35.co.us.ibm.com Received: from e35.co.us.ibm.com (HELO e35.co.us.ibm.com) (32.97.110.153) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 20:16:05 +0000 Received: from /spool/local by e35.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:16:03 -0700 Received: from d03dlp02.boulder.ibm.com (9.17.202.178) by e35.co.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.135) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:16:01 -0700 Received: from b03cxnp07028.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03cxnp07028.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.15]) by d03dlp02.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACAA93E40040 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:16:00 -0700 (MST) Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by b03cxnp07028.gho.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id sBBKF0Z427066502 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:15:00 -0700 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id sBBKG0uQ029604 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:16:00 -0700 Received: from tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com (tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com [9.152.85.9]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVin) with SMTP id sBBKFwFu029387; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:15:58 -0700 Message-Id: <201412112015.sBBKFwFu029387@d03av02.boulder.ibm.com> Received: by tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 11 Dec 2014 21:15:57 +0100 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] S390: Fix gdbserver support for TDB To: arnez@linux.vnet.ibm.com (Andreas Arnez) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 20:16:00 -0000 From: "Ulrich Weigand" Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <87d27qm82t.fsf@br87z6lw.de.ibm.com> from "Andreas Arnez" at Dec 11, 2014 06:04:26 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 14121120-0013-0000-0000-000006FDA596 X-SW-Source: 2014-12/txt/msg00258.txt.bz2 Andreas Arnez wrote: > On Wed, Dec 10 2014, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > > This (and the related s390_fill_last_break change) is really an independent > > change; maybe do it as a separate patch? For consistency, we might likewise > > want to allow regsets with NULL store_function (in regsets_fetch_inferior_registers). > > OK, I will split the change to allow regsets with a NULL store_function > and the exploitation for last_break out into a separate patch > ("gdbserver: Support read-only regsets"). > > And for consistency I can also allow regsets with a NULL store_function. > In that case I *think* we should suppress the invocation of ptrace with > the regset's get_request in regsets_store_inferior_registers(). In > other words, instead of read-modify-write we would then only do the > write. Agreed? Ah, yes, the situation isn't symmetrical; I didn't think of that. > In the original patch I omitted support for write-only regsets because I > do not see a use case for this; and if there will be a use case in the > future, I am not sure that the approach described above will really be > appropriate. Given that, it's probably best to indeed wait until we have a use case (if ever), so I withdraw my suggestion. Thanks, Ulrich -- Dr. Ulrich Weigand GNU/Linux compilers and toolchain Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com