From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-63531-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 19483 invoked by alias); 5 May 2009 19:52:23 -0000
Received: (qmail 19474 invoked by uid 22791); 5 May 2009 19:52:22 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.1 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_SOFTFAIL
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mtaout2.012.net.il (HELO mtaout2.012.net.il) (84.95.2.4)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 May 2009 19:52:14 +0000
Received: from conversion-daemon.i_mtaout2.012.net.il by i_mtaout2.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) id <0KJ600000RU0J400@i_mtaout2.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Tue, 05 May 2009 22:52:12 +0300 (IDT)
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.127.230.216]) by i_mtaout2.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) with ESMTPA id <0KJ600CG2SIZ44G0@i_mtaout2.012.net.il>; Tue, 05 May 2009 22:52:11 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 19:52:00 -0000
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Process record and replay checked in to main trunk
In-reply-to: <200905051932.n45JW8Xk001860@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
To: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
Cc: teawater@gmail.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Message-id: <837i0ve39f.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <daef60380904300059g191dfe0bu7773ee01f35892bf@mail.gmail.com> <83ws91c5sp.fsf@gnu.org> <daef60380905030654o6e4d82caoc7c096708973f970@mail.gmail.com> <83prepdss5.fsf@gnu.org> <daef60380905050639y58ee8671nf81acc0c362c9922@mail.gmail.com> <83ab5re5mz.fsf@gnu.org> <200905051932.n45JW8Xk001860@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-05/txt/msg00094.txt.bz2

> Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 21:32:08 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
> CC: teawater@gmail.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> 
> As far as I know all open source Unix-like operating systems implement systemcalls using int0x80 amd/or syscall.

That still isn't general enough to cover every i386 target, is it?

Maybe I'm wrong in assuming that OS specifics should be kept out of
i386-tdep.c.

And I still don't understand why cannot some hypothetical i386 target
to use the _name_ i386_intx80_record to support sycalls that are
entered through an interrupt other than 80h.  Hui seemed to say this
name is reserved for syscalls through Int 80h.

If the name is not special, why not call it i386_syscall_record, for
example?