From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 59684 invoked by alias); 16 Aug 2018 20:16:58 -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 59667 invoked by uid 89); 16 Aug 2018 20:16:58 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=pretend, GDBgenerated, gdbgenerated, GDB-generated X-HELO: mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (HELO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com) (148.163.156.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 20:16:57 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098410.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w7GKEjG6063588 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 16:16:56 -0400 Received: from e12.ny.us.ibm.com (e12.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.202]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2kwfem9nmn-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 16:16:55 -0400 Received: from localhost by e12.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 16:16:54 -0400 Received: from b01cxnp23032.gho.pok.ibm.com (9.57.198.27) by e12.ny.us.ibm.com (146.89.104.199) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Thu, 16 Aug 2018 16:16:51 -0400 Received: from b01ledav005.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav005.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.110]) by b01cxnp23032.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id w7GKGoaJ16187832 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 16 Aug 2018 20:16:50 GMT Received: from b01ledav005.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id B31BDAE05F; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 16:16:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from b01ledav005.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 873AAAE05C; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 16:16:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pedro.localdomain (unknown [9.18.235.43]) by b01ledav005.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 16:16:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pedro.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5E17B3C03DD; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 17:16:48 -0300 (-03) From: Pedro Franco de Carvalho To: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Cc: uweigand@de.ibm.com, edjunior@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 12/12] [PowerPC] Add support for HTM registers In-Reply-To: <87lg96xktg.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20180815000608.26840-1-pedromfc@linux.ibm.com> <20180815000608.26840-13-pedromfc@linux.ibm.com> <540dad8e-f9a2-8173-a556-c919fbeeb43f@redhat.com> <87lg96xktg.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 20:16:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain x-cbid: 18081620-0060-0000-0000-0000029F463E X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00009556; HX=3.00000242; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000266; SDB=6.01074491; UDB=6.00553727; IPR=6.00854448; MB=3.00022762; MTD=3.00000008; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2018-08-16 20:16:53 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 18081620-0061-0000-0000-00004630CD1F Message-Id: <87d0uixe1b.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-08/txt/msg00415.txt.bz2 Pedro Franco de Carvalho writes: > Pedro Alves writes: > >> I won't pretend to understand the above fully (not an Power expert), >> but the question I ended up with was, after all this, will the >> GDB-generated files end up looking like kernel-generated cores? >> Or are there plans for that? > > They will end up looking different for this regset note section. This > really seems like a kernel bug, which I'm hoping will get fixed. Correction: the size of the regset note section for 32-bit threads seems like a kernel bug. The fact that the kernel includes values for registers that GDB doesn't include in the note section (by zeroing them) isn't a kernel bug, but to do this GDB would have to be aware of all these registers that aren't defined in the architecture. -- Pedro Franco de Carvalho