Re: [PATCH v2] Port GDB to Hurd x86_64.

Flávio Cruz
2024-07-03T21:48:41Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2684 bytes --]

On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 11:15 PM John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote:

> On 2/23/24 9:28 PM, Flavio Cruz wrote:
> > This port extends the existing i686 port to support x86_64 by trying to
> > reuse existing code whenever it makes sense.
> >
> > * gdb/amd64-gnu-tdep.c: Adds logic for handling signal frames and
> > position of amd64 registers in the different Hurd structs.
> > The signal code is very similar to i686, except the trampoline code
> > is adapted.
> > * gdb/config/i386/nm-i386gnu.h: renamed to gdb/config/i386/nm-x86-gnu.h
> > and adapt it for x86_64.
> > * gdb/config/i386/i386gnu.mn: renamed to gdb/config/i386/nm-x86-gnu.mn
> > and reuse it for x86_64.
> > * gdb/configure.host: recognize gnu64 as a host.
> > * gdb/configure.nat: recognize gnu64 host and update existing i386gnu to
> > reuse the new shared files.
> > * gdb/configure.tgt: recognize x86_64-*-gnu* triplet and use
> > amd64-gnu-tdep.c.
> > * gdb/i386-gnu-tdep.c: added i386_gnu_thread_state_reg_offset that is
> > copied from i386-gnu-nat.c. This makes it similar to amd64.
> > * gdb/i386-gnu-nat.c: rename it to x86-gnu-nat.c since we reuse this for
> > i386 and amd64. Updated REG_ADDR to use one of the structures. Added
> > VALID_REGISTER to make sure it's a register we can provide at this
> time
> > (not all of them are available in amd64). FLAGS_REGISTER is either rfl
> > or efl depending on the arch. Renamed functions and class from i386
> to x86
> > whenever they can be reused.
> >
> > Tested on Hurd x86_64 and i686.
> > ---
> >
> > I addressed John's comments and moved amd64_gnu_thread_state_* and
> > i386_gnu_thread_state_* to x86-gnu-nat.c. The new patch also contains a
> few
> > changes that makes backtracing through shared libraries work.
>
> Thanks, this generally looks ok to me.
>
> One question I have is if you need nat/x86-xstate.o for the native Hurd
> x86_64
> target? The i686 target doesn't use it and I didn't see any references in
> the patches to XSAVE support, so I suspect you don't need it. Were you
> getting
> a link error without it, or is it something you copied from Linux x86_64?
> If
> the latter, it is probably best to drop it for now until you add XSAVE
> support
> in the future (which would presumably apply to both i686 and x86_64).
>

You are right, nat/x86-xstate it's not needed yet. I mailed a second
version of this
patch without requiring nat/x86-xstate.o plus some updates to make sure the
code
still compiles with the newest changes in GDB.

Thank you

>
> Reviewed-By: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>
>
> --
> John Baldwin
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3553 bytes --]