From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 122635 invoked by alias); 27 Feb 2015 18:50:25 -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 122623 invoked by uid 89); 27 Feb 2015 18:50:24 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 18:50:23 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t1RIoLTp015550 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 27 Feb 2015 13:50:21 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t1RIoJtW017016; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 13:50:20 -0500 Message-ID: <54F0BC6B.8070901@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 18:50:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yao Qi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Support command "catch syscall" properly on different targets References: <1425047015-1906-1-git-send-email-qiyaoltc@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1425047015-1906-1-git-send-email-qiyaoltc@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-02/txt/msg00835.txt.bz2 On 02/27/2015 02:23 PM, Yao Qi wrote: > (gdb) target remote :1234 > Remote debugging using :1234 > Reading symbols from /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2...(no debugging symbols found)...done. > 0x00007ffff7ddb2d0 in ?? () from /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 > (gdb) catch syscall close > The feature 'catch syscall' is not supported on this target yet. > > which looks more reasonable to me. However, this patch causes some > regressions in catch-syscall.exp, > > catch syscall nonsense_syscall^M > The feature 'catch syscall' is not supported on this target yet.^M > (gdb) FAIL: gdb.base/catch-syscall.exp: catch syscall to a nonsense syscall is prohibited > > because syscall catchpoint isn't supported on exec target. > I can move these tests to the place where inferior is created, before > I go too far, I'd like to hear what do you think of this. Yes, I guess we should do that. If we're not connected to a target yet, we have no clue whether the target that ends up connected supports catch syscall or not. Do we actually need to do anything when the inferior is created? Supposedly once the inferior is created, we'll try to insert the catchpoint, and that will fail is the target does not support it. Thanks, Pedro Alves