From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22684 invoked by alias); 10 May 2012 08:49:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 22657 invoked by uid 22791); 10 May 2012 08:49:38 -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 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-wg0-f43.google.com (HELO mail-wg0-f43.google.com) (74.125.82.43) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 May 2012 08:49:23 +0000 Received: by wgbdr1 with SMTP id dr1so897751wgb.12 for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 01:49:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.24.103 with SMTP id t7mr14247248wif.16.1336639762609; Thu, 10 May 2012 01:49:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.180.104.201 with HTTP; Thu, 10 May 2012 01:49:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87sjf9qecr.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> References: <87sjf9qecr.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 08:49:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [design change] record-replay linux ABI level From: oza Pawandeep To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb@sourceware.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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: 2012-05/txt/msg00330.txt.bz2 Tom, The definition of system call record maps fine to x86. but arm syscall numbers are different. [partially] for e.g. on x86 sycall number for sys_epoll_create = 254 while on ARM it is 250. the more we go down on defined system calls the more the numbers are differing on ARM and we loose one to one trivial mapping. Regards, Oza. On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:08 AM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "oza" == oza Pawandeep writes: > > oza> currently linux-record.h is having defination of > oza> enum gdb_syscall {...} which seems generic one, but infact it only > oza> addresses i386 arch. > > Based on reading the header, it seems to me that the idea is that this > enum is intended to be generic, and that each target must provide its > own mapping from the local syscalls to these. > > oza> I am thinking of moving all the definition to i386 specific files > oza> (assuming there is no generic way to address all the systemcalls on > oza> all arch). > > It seems to me that most syscalls could perhaps be shared, but maybe > some architectures will require additions to the enum. > > I'm not sure, though. > > Could you say in more detail what problem you ran into? > > Tom