From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6799 invoked by alias); 8 Aug 2011 13:05:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 6789 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Aug 2011 13:05:15 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Aug 2011 13:04:58 +0000 Received: (qmail 4186 invoked from network); 8 Aug 2011 13:04:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.0.101?) (yao@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 8 Aug 2011 13:04:56 -0000 Message-ID: <4E3FDEF3.5070200@codesourcery.com> Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 13:05:00 -0000 From: Yao Qi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110617 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Kettenis CC: vapier@gentoo.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA 4/8] New port: TI C6x: Read loadmap from gdbserver References: <4E263865.2070100@codesourcery.com> <4E2CF0C6.2060504@codesourcery.com> <201108072030.02712.vapier@gentoo.org> <4E3F4E05.6010409@codesourcery.com> <201108080828.p788SSjq018524@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: <201108080828.p788SSjq018524@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2011-08/txt/msg00141.txt.bz2 On 08/08/2011 04:28 PM, Mark Kettenis wrote: > Now the kernel vs. libc headers issue has always been a contentious > one on Linux. But I think you should use the PTRACE_-prefixed names > in your code since those are the "official" Linux names, since Linux > was intended to be System V compatible. The PT_-prefixed names are > really only for compatibility with BSD (So I don't really understand > why people keep adding them for ptrace(2) requests that no BSD variant > ever had). Mark, thanks for pointing this out. If we want to use PTRACE_GETDSBT here, we should include "asm/ptrace.h" in linux-low.c, which I am hesitant to do. Current convention in linux-low.c, AFAICT, is about target-independent code, and so "asm/ptrace.h" is not included. I don't want to break this convention to include "asm/ptrace.h", but I am not insist on this. If you believe it is safe to include "asm/ptrace.h", I am fine with it. -- Yao (齐尧)