From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id kI4fAgO3gGBiRwAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 19:36:35 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id EE1BB1F104; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 19:36:34 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,T_DKIM_INVALID,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 45F6B1E783 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 19:36:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC2DC386EC30; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 23:36:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail-ed1-x52e.google.com (mail-ed1-x52e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52e]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10B693857C74 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 23:36:32 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 10B693857C74 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=sifive.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=jimw@sifive.com Received: by mail-ed1-x52e.google.com with SMTP id cq11so7651538edb.0 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 16:36:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sifive.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=FjQD++tGbRhQmF5BmyLg67GNP5z5YA1CySjO01cuFZo=; b=ldNpdEfWPYETDYs2d8qsm1wqMZ/oZ79DK96oNO/Rzqzn9iwldZq9kFEWBb7CYb6zWT uGfpUtgAj4YF/WAQLSPvBZd91AC6oB/+b9oq6OJSvWgi3X++ctf9ybPLC9B/70VAYK2H Ibamdj6ULyHyMO/LyvQ7pbK6cr9ViMBWpDVc4e2EnTuNvrRG8aQdqRbjg9J56g3mRl/f JeR8NDJjejacHO+8iRikgMpmAzYDnnWtq0ps76mD+oscVb4Ebc0bESckC9PV63pBn22b C7m+75vtTX381YjFcIxm0biiUjLYOEH3JgoXm/s5SzdL6ns5Uu7orZeBoY235KIRn+NH PGjQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=FjQD++tGbRhQmF5BmyLg67GNP5z5YA1CySjO01cuFZo=; b=FtuGkOtLitG2rj8vYpZEtwHaaBXrtv5wy8NemvFlu3sRyaiIt7tfVJnhMZVFk7dDQ+ 8aitCszF3DtqIjXQUePV3XT8CT7CJ7PUCEYrRtq9C5PeDyEN8nsiGGM3x4HtAzSFjt/a HiqUWF0xiLP+KkfpHYpmGPFRQKNh+QdaGBqidRNviCKfDtKhioLSJDwMGAPDt60NS+rx yf/fNU0/yXpQXo2fM816kOZRbh1GdIRHci7fgEmyyj6oXY77ui/CyUQwD9x2yqkjNk5S U5CVUFb44H0K7UQpjTK9HYuhXGOb6HWxK89kjUiE31dl+08ij5NU56Xi0GpPzNq7dXZv w16A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533VEROWyOMKouyAAxk26Nf/sLCgTn1ADIzH2oAsetw9aSmDDsDI NQmGCH1SvGSaBidl5q/u4WumyOPed8jkH8113f0hnw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwpdrgPput4rVc14tJ3L2N1c9bHkS/5YNFAtQ585n/iPNE+A/6R6+s0SBePlYn0b7cqdxQbU6fBmNOiWFez71w= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:416:: with SMTP id q22mr488998edv.204.1619048191135; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 16:36:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210417175831.16413-1-jimw@sifive.com> <20210417175831.16413-8-jimw@sifive.com> In-Reply-To: From: Jim Wilson Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 16:36:20 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/24] RISC-V sim: Add link syscall support. To: Jim Wilson , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Kuan-Lin Chen Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 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: , Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 9:09 PM Mike Frysinger wrote: > On 17 Apr 2021 10:58, Jim Wilson wrote: > > - cpu->a0 = sim_syscall (cpu, cpu->a7, cpu->a0, cpu->a1, cpu->a2, > cpu->a3); > > + if (cb_target_to_host_syscall (STATE_CALLBACK (sd), cpu->a7) == > -1) > > ... > > + case TARGET_SYS_link: > > why not implement this in common/syscall.c so all ports can benefit ? > I don't know. It isn't my patch. Maybe they didn't want to touch generic sim code? That would have made the RISC-V changes messier. Personally, I think the link syscall is of limited value. But moving it to common/syscall.c sounds reasonable. Maybe as a bug report and/or follow on patch? Jim