From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20033 invoked by alias); 19 Jun 2012 16:03:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 20019 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Jun 2012 16:03:44 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,TW_YM X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-wi0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-wi0-f169.google.com) (209.85.212.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 16:03:31 +0000 Received: by wibhn14 with SMTP id hn14so2559381wib.0 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 09:03:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.141.164 with SMTP id g36mr3368334wej.119.1340121809635; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 09:03:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.235.140 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 09:03:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4FD0AF8C.2040908@codesourcery.com> <4FDEF3C3.6090100@codesourcery.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 16:03:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] Makefile.in includes linux-record.c to be common for all arch. (arm-reversible>phase-3) From: oza Pawandeep To: Hui Zhu Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , Yao Qi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2012-06/txt/msg00617.txt.bz2 Hi Hui, please ignore the syscall record patch; I will be working on resolving certain things from gdb.reverse suite on ARM for the first patch. Regards, Oza. On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:43 AM, oza Pawandeep w= rote: > Let me elaborate it further how it works. > >> =C2=A0 the bare metal insn is thought to be separately working; where it= doesnt support syscall. > >> now with this patch syscall support is provided; it is done in phases. I= believe the change is huge and independent enough; > >> this first patch has been in with the approval of Tom and it was under r= eview for more than a year; I would have appreciated the early comments. th= e patch has been reviewed with all aspects. (of course I would expect some = hiccups, that would be solved in due time) > >> as far as syscall number is concerned; yes I have read the code and amd6= 4_canonicalize_syscall. If you re-read the patch, arm_canonicalize_syscall = is alredy defined, the question is not at internal gdb syscall number but a= t different level of conflicting syscall numbers. > > please have a look at the chain > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2012-05/msg00035.html > > Regards, > Oza. > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 7:04 AM, Hui Zhu wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 2:49 AM, oza Pawandeep = wrote: >>> Hi Hui, >>> >>> The phase2 works indepedently. It does not need syscall really. If i re= call >>> correctly michael snyder suggested that i make two patches.=C2=A0 The f= irst patch >>> contains arm instructions and the and second part contains linux abi >>> support. >> >> I think he's means is divide the patch to insn part and syscall part. >> But if you want to post to maillist or commit to cvs tree. =C2=A0I think >> they need to be commit together. >> The reason is without the syscall-record support, how the patch test >> with the testsuite? =C2=A0Without that, How do you prove that your code = is >> correct? >> For the x86-record code, the insn and syscall patch is commit >> together. =C2=A0So go back to my suggest, move all the code about arm >> record to a separate branch. =C2=A0And when you done all of them and past >> the test, re-commit them. >> >>> >>> The second part which i am working now requires linux-record.o hence i = wrote >>> we require it to be compiled with the second part of patch. >>> >>> So first i try to chek in minor change of congpfigure.tgt >>> And then i check syscall record on arm. >>> >>> By the way there is one more query which has been there under discussio= n. >>> When you made gdb sys call defination, it was thought as generic, but it >>> does not turn out to be applicable for arm as syscall number differs. >>> Sometime back tom had suggestion of having xml files under gdb/syscalls= =C2=A0 for >>> arm arch and x86 separately; do you have any inputs to it?=C2=A0 Of cou= rse it >>> would change x86 syscall record to be read from xml files.j >> >> Do you really see the code of syscall-record part? =C2=A0I suggest you >> re-read the code. >> The linux-syscall-record code can be work with most of the arch >> because before call record_linux_system_call, the syscall number will >> be translate to enum gdb_syscall. =C2=A0You can see the >> amd64_canonicalize_syscall as the example. >> >> Thanks, >> Hui >> >>> >>> Regards, >>> Oza. >>> >>> On Jun 18, 2012 2:22 PM, "Hui Zhu" wrote: >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:49 PM, oza Pawandeep >>>> wrote: >>>> > Yes I agree; as I integrated both of them and post them at once. >>>> > sorry about confusion; this patch has to be ignored. >>>> > >>>> > In fact I wanted this patch to be approved first because without whi= ch >>>> > sys call patch would not compile. >>>> >>>> >>>> Why you cannot commit a patch list when the function is done? >>>> I think the function in the trunk tree need be done before commit to >>>> it. =C2=A0If you want work in cvs, I suggest you use the branch first. >>>> >>>> On the other hand, I heard that some of code of arm record is checked >>>> in. =C2=A0I don't think it is right. =C2=A0Because without syscall sup= port, it >>>> cannot work, right? >>>> So what I suggest is move all the code about arm record to a separate >>>> branch. =C2=A0And when all of the arm record function done, you re-sen= d all >>>> of them. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Hui >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>> > Regards, >>>> > Oza. >>>> > >>>> > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Yao Qi wrote: >>>> >> On 06/18/2012 05:08 PM, oza Pawandeep wrote: >>>> >>> diff -urN orig/configure.tgt new/configure.tgt >>>> >>> --- orig/configure.tgt =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A02012-06-18 12:36= :47.274501400 +0530 >>>> >>> +++ new/configure.tgt 2012-06-18 12:31:47.335501400 +0530 >>>> >>> @@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ >>>> >>> =C2=A0arm*-*-linux*) >>>> >>> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 # Target: ARM based machine running GNU/Linux >>>> >>> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 gdb_target_obs=3D"arm-tdep.o arm-linux-tdep.o= glibc-tdep.o \ >>>> >>> - =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 solib-svr4.o symfile-mem.o linux-tdep.o" >>>> >>> + =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 solib-svr4.o symfile-mem.o linux-tdep.o >>>> >>> linux-record.o" >>>> >>> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 build_gdbserver=3Dyes >>>> >>> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 ;; >>>> >>> =C2=A0arm*-*-netbsd* | arm*-*-knetbsd*-gnu) >>>> >>> >>>> >>> ok to check in ? >>>> >> >>>> >> It is not good to post the same change twice in different mails. = =C2=A0This >>>> >> change makes no sense until your 'arm-syscall record' patch is >>>> >> approved. >>>> >> =C2=A0I noticed that this change has been included in your 'arm-sys= call >>>> >> record' patch, so I think patch here doesn't have to reviewed. >>>> >> >>>> >> -- >>>> >> Yao (=E9=BD=90=E5=B0=A7) >>>> >> >>>> >>