From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19401 invoked by alias); 23 Jan 2013 15:34:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 19321 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Jan 2013 15:34:11 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 15:34:00 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r0NFXuuV030105 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 23 Jan 2013 10:33:56 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r0NFXq03025414; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 10:33:54 -0500 Message-ID: <510002E0.7070806@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 15:34:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130110 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kaushik Phatak CC: Joel Brobecker , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , Yao Qi , Tom Tromey Subject: Re: [RFA 3/5] New port: CR16: gdb port References: <20121022224107.GB3713@adacore.com> <20121023135502.GA3555@adacore.com> <20121115174313.GC3790@adacore.com> <20121122175010.GG9964@adacore.com> <20130117085919.GA3564@adacore.com> <20130118141649.GK3564@adacore.com> <50FEABC8.2040805@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2013-01/txt/msg00553.txt.bz2 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