From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29316 invoked by alias); 13 Jun 2013 09:16:22 -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 29303 invoked by uid 89); 13 Jun 2013 09:16:21 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from e06smtp12.uk.ibm.com (HELO e06smtp12.uk.ibm.com) (195.75.94.108) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 09:16:19 +0000 Received: from /spool/local by e06smtp12.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:11:39 +0100 Received: from d06dlp01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.20.13) by e06smtp12.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.142) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:11:38 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay10.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.195]) by d06dlp01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 520EE17D805F for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:17:36 +0100 (BST) Received: from d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.213]) by b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id r5D9G3MB45416684 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 09:16:03 GMT Received: from d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id r5D9GEAM020061 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 03:16:14 -0600 Received: from br87z6lw.de.ibm.com (dyn-9-152-212-143.boeblingen.de.ibm.com [9.152.212.143]) by d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id r5D9GDIZ020048; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 03:16:13 -0600 From: Andreas Arnez To: Mark Kettenis Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] Dynamic core regset sections support References: <877ghzmkmj.fsf@br87z6lw.de.ibm.com> <8738sngy5e.fsf@br87z6lw.de.ibm.com> <201306121521.r5CFLvl9024858@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 09:32:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <201306121521.r5CFLvl9024858@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> (Mark Kettenis's message of "Wed, 12 Jun 2013 17:21:57 +0200 (CEST)") Message-ID: <871u86e5gi.fsf@br87z6lw.de.ibm.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-TM-AS-MML: No X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 13061309-8372-0000-0000-0000064BDD21 X-SW-Source: 2013-06/txt/msg00307.txt.bz2 Mark Kettenis writes: > Sorry, but I really don't like the obfuscation that this diff brings > to the amd64 & i186 Linux targets. If you can point me specifically to the spot where the obfuscation occurs, I'll do my best to clean it up. A side-intention with the patch actually was to *improve* readability, mainly by avoiding copy- & pasted array initializers and distributed code logic. And indeed, while offering improved flexibility, the patch overall saves 60 lines of code: 11 files changed, 266 insertions(+), 326 deletions(-) amd64 is the only architecture that suffers from a slight code increase (8 lines). > Is there really no other way to this? There are always other ways ;-) I already implemented some of them, and the proposed patch seemed like the best approach to me. > Is it really that bad to write out the invalid TDB registers? If GDB > recognizes them as invalid, this shouldn't be a big issue should it? Do you mean to always write the TDB regset into the core dump, like without the patch? And then add some logic such that GDB recognizes zero values in the register note section as invalid and clears the regset? Or do I misinterpret your suggestion? BTW, I wonder how transaction diagnostics works on x86. E.g., when an illegal instruction occurs within a hardware transaction, will the core dump contain the address of the violating instruction?