From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sa-prd-fep-048.btinternet.com (mailomta29-sa.btinternet.com [213.120.69.35]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B88E3947413 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 14:47:17 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sa-prd-rgout-003.btmx-prd.synchronoss.net ([10.2.38.6]) by sa-prd-fep-040.btinternet.com with ESMTP id <20200308140512.BUVS30239.sa-prd-fep-040.btinternet.com@sa-prd-rgout-003.btmx-prd.synchronoss.net> for ; Sun, 8 Mar 2020 14:05:12 +0000 Authentication-Results: btinternet.com; auth=pass (PLAIN) smtp.auth=jonturney@btinternet.com X-Originating-IP: [86.141.128.2] X-OWM-Source-IP: 86.141.128.2 (GB) X-OWM-Env-Sender: jonturney@btinternet.com X-VadeSecure-score: verdict=clean score=0/300, class=clean X-RazorGate-Vade: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedrudduiedgiedtucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuueftkffvkffujffvgffngfevqffopdfqfgfvnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepuffvfhfhkffffgggjggtgfesthejredttdefjeenucfhrhhomheplfhonhcuvfhurhhnvgihuceojhhonhdrthhurhhnvgihsegurhhonhgvtghouggvrdhorhhgrdhukheqnecuffhomhgrihhnpehsohhurhgtvgifrghrvgdrohhrghdptgihghifihhnrdgtohhmnecukfhppeekiedrudeguddruddvkedrvdenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhephhgvlhhopegludelvddrudeikedruddruddtiegnpdhinhgvthepkeeirddugedurdduvdekrddvpdhmrghilhhfrhhomhepoehjohhnrdhtuhhrnhgvhiesughrohhnvggtohguvgdrohhrghdruhhkqecuuefqffgjpeekuefkvffokffogfdprhgtphhtthhopeeoghgusgdqphgrthgthhgvshesshhouhhrtggvfigrrhgvrdhorhhgqe X-RazorGate-Vade-Verdict: clean 0 X-RazorGate-Vade-Classification: clean Received: from [192.168.1.106] (86.141.128.2) by sa-prd-rgout-003.btmx-prd.synchronoss.net (5.8.340) (authenticated as jonturney@btinternet.com) id 5E3A268A0501D5AD for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Sun, 8 Mar 2020 14:05:12 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb: recognize 64 bits Windows executables as Cygwin osabi To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20200307041742.31158-1-simon.marchi@efficios.com> <83zhcsa8my.fsf@gnu.org> <4bd435cd-b06d-e0fc-70a9-9a8a18d73987@efficios.com> <835zfg9hz5.fsf@gnu.org> From: Jon Turney Message-ID: <85cd5fc2-8fa7-3612-b974-b3a3261bbb29@dronecode.org.uk> Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2020 14:05:10 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <835zfg9hz5.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, FORGED_SPF_HELO, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_NONE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 14:47:18 -0000 On 07/03/2020 17:45, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org >> From: Simon Marchi >> Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2020 11:51:08 -0500 >> >> https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2020-03/msg00151.html >> >> Currently, loading the 64-bits .exe in a GNU/Linux-hosted GDB ends up calling >> the svr4 libraries code, which is plain wrong. By using the Cygwin osabi, >> at least the right shared libraries functions are used. >> >> I agree with what you suggest below, but I think that the current patch is >> still a step forward and improves things. > > I agree. I just think we can do better. > >> So what we can do is add an "MS-Windows" osabi and make "Cygwin" and >> "MS-Windows" functionally equivalent. Any "pei-i386" or "pei-x86-64" >> executable would be detected as "MS-Windows". I believe this suggestion for x86_64 is wrong, in the other direction: x86_64 Cygwin is LP64, but Windows is LLP64 (Se also table in [1]) (currently 'print sizeof(long)' incorrectly returns 4 on a gdb built for Cygwin) There was some discussion that these need to be separate osabis previously, I think. [1] https://cygwin.com/faq.html#faq.programming.64bitporting > That's fine with me, and IMO will be more accurate than calling them > all "Cygwin", since Cygwin programs are just a peculiar kind of > Windows executables. > >> If we do such a change, I would like it to be done on top of the current >> patch, as to not mix concerns. > > I'm okay with that, thanks.