From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id /0lWBoPxAmFTSgAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 14:20:51 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 099461EDFB; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 14:20:51 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7215C1E813 for ; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 14:20:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7F183893C7D for ; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 18:20:49 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C7F183893C7D DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1627582849; bh=ki9HsL0hM+NTMbsP1Yy5y3SQXhjWzpE5VTss95cr/7A=; h=Subject:To:References:Date:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=Euiwg32Utbj9CN2bq7GE7lJpggXWX733N9KBlgamxeKzZtZoLrzclrq6aGk5qsLwY WBVwbAM7iSQbpzv8n3z/aF60HzGhtSZWcktQgAQD30Y0oc2atI7h+v3DX/JEDRvi4t 7aPwrIHk91Ddg2ON2LN6yT89tE0/AkylOag4JeXo= Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (smtp.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.11]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 075A23851416 for ; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 18:20:28 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 075A23851416 Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 16TIKH2Q014306 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 29 Jul 2021 14:20:21 -0400 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp.polymtl.ca 16TIKH2Q014306 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (192-222-157-6.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.157.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B2CD31E813; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 14:20:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PING][PATCH,v5][AArch64] MTE corefile support To: Catalin Marinas References: <20210518202047.3492211-1-luis.machado@linaro.org> <20210601174519.4157316-1-luis.machado@linaro.org> <20210711142200.GA637634@adacore.com> <20210714130702.GA9376@arm.com> <20210729181044.GD31848@arm.com> Message-ID: <7d85da38-1e88-1f1f-77fa-15dbe483538b@polymtl.ca> Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 14:20:16 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210729181044.GD31848@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Poly-FromMTA: (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) at Thu, 29 Jul 2021 18:20:17 +0000 X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Simon Marchi Cc: david.spickett@linaro.org, Luis Machado via Gdb-patches , Joel Brobecker Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On 2021-07-29 2:10 p.m., Catalin Marinas wrote: > I'm more worried about GDB 11 reading the MTE notes incorrectly rather > than not reading them at all. Yeah, if a GDB 11 that knows how to read the pre-standardized notes does not fail gracefully when encountering the standardized notes, it would be bad. If it just skipped them and said "I don't recognize them", it would be ok. >> If we merge support for MTE in core files now and if the format >> doesn't change, everybody is happy. I guess it depends on how likely it >> is that the format is going to change. > That's hard to say before we go through at least one Linux kernel > mailing review. Oh, ok, I thought it had already gone through some review cycles. Then I'll leave it to you all to decide, those who have some stakes in this. Simon