Re: [RFA 3/5] New port: CR16: gdb port

Pedro Alves
2013-01-23T15:34:12Z

On 01/23/2013 02:22 PM, Kaushik Phatak wrote:

>>> + "r0r1_orig",
>> This too looks like a ptrace detail escaping all the
>> way to the user, similar to the gdbserver issues.
>> Any reason not to split those up? I think it'd be nicer.
> This is a kernel scratch register and it part of PT_REGS.
> Would be OK to leave it as is as it may help in debugging?

Debugging gdb, or a user debugging an application?
If users expect to see that as a pair, fine. If users/scripts
driving gdb would always want to read the values separately,
then I'd think it better to have separate (r0_orig,
r1_orig), or even hide one of them -- does the syscall abi
use both r0/r1 for syscall return, or is one of them in
orig just because that's how ptrace pushes registers
into the buffer? But it's up to you, really. The
orig_ registers aren't normally user visible.
I'm just pointing at things that looked fishy on first
sight, and it looked inconsistent to not have a pair
for r0/r1 but have it for the orig_ version.

--
Pedro Alves