From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15603 invoked by alias); 19 Jun 2012 05:13:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 15589 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Jun 2012 05:13:35 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.7 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-f177.google.com (HELO mail-wi0-f177.google.com) (209.85.212.177) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 05:13:22 +0000 Received: by wibhm11 with SMTP id hm11so162561wib.12 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 22:13:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.24.39 with SMTP id r7mr93486wif.9.1340082800870; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 22:13:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.235.140 with HTTP; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 22:13:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4FD0AF8C.2040908@codesourcery.com> <4FDEF3C3.6090100@codesourcery.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 05:13:00 -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/msg00605.txt.bz2 Let me elaborate it further how it works. > the bare metal insn is thought to be separately working; where it doesn= t 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 re= view for more than a year; I would have appreciated the early comments. the= patch has been reviewed with all aspects. (of course I would expect some h= iccups, that would be solved in due time) > as far as syscall number is concerned; yes I have read the code and amd64= _canonicalize_syscall. If you re-read the patch, arm_canonicalize_syscall i= s alredy defined, the question is not at internal gdb syscall number but at= 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 rec= all >> correctly michael snyder suggested that i make two patches.=C2=A0 The fi= rst 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 w= rote >> 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 discussion. >> 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 cour= se 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 which >>> > 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 supp= ort, 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-send= 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-sysc= all >>> >> record' patch, so I think patch here doesn't have to reviewed. >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> Yao (=E9=BD=90=E5=B0=A7) >>> >> >>> >>