Re: [PATCH] Makefile.in includes linux-record.c to be common for all arch. (arm-reversible>phase-3)

[oza Pawandeep <oza.pawandeep@gmail.com>]

Hi Hui,

The phase2 works indepedently. It does not need syscall really. If i
recall correctly michael snyder suggested that i make two patches. The
first patch contains arm instructions and the second part contains
linux abi support.

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 configure.tgt and then i
check syscall record on arm; It has no dependency on any previous
arm-record stuffs.

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  for arm arch and x86 separately; do you have any inputs
to it?  Of course it would change x86 syscall record to be read from
xml files.

Regards,
Oza.

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 12:19 AM, oza Pawandeep <oza.pawandeep@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Hui,
>
> The phase2 works indepedently. It does not need syscall really. If i recall
> correctly michael snyder suggested that i make two patches.  The first patch
> contains arm instructions and the and second part contains linux abi
> support.
>
> 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 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  for
> arm arch and x86 separately; do you have any inputs to it?  Of course it
> would change x86 syscall record to be read from xml files.j
>
> Regards,
> Oza.
>
> On Jun 18, 2012 2:22 PM, "Hui Zhu" <teawater@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:49 PM, oza Pawandeep <oza.pawandeep@gmail.com>
>> 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.  If 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.  I don't think it is right.  Because without syscall support, it
>> cannot work, right?
>> So what I suggest is move all the code about arm record to a separate
>> branch.  And 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 <yao@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>> >> On 06/18/2012 05:08 PM, oza Pawandeep wrote:
>> >>> diff -urN orig/configure.tgt new/configure.tgt
>> >>> --- orig/configure.tgt        2012-06-18 12:36:47.274501400 +0530
>> >>> +++ new/configure.tgt 2012-06-18 12:31:47.335501400 +0530
>> >>> @@ -76,7 +76,7 @@
>> >>>  arm*-*-linux*)
>> >>>       # Target: ARM based machine running GNU/Linux
>> >>>       gdb_target_obs="arm-tdep.o arm-linux-tdep.o glibc-tdep.o \
>> >>> -                     solib-svr4.o symfile-mem.o linux-tdep.o"
>> >>> +                     solib-svr4.o symfile-mem.o linux-tdep.o
>> >>> linux-record.o"
>> >>>       build_gdbserver=yes
>> >>>       ;;
>> >>>  arm*-*-netbsd* | arm*-*-knetbsd*-gnu)
>> >>>
>> >>> ok to check in ?
>> >>
>> >> It is not good to post the same change twice in different mails.  This
>> >> change makes no sense until your 'arm-syscall record' patch is
>> >> approved.
>> >>  I noticed that this change has been included in your 'arm-syscall
>> >> record' patch, so I think patch here doesn't have to reviewed.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Yao (齐尧)
>> >>
>> >>