Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Raunaq 12 <raunaq12@in.ibm.com>
To: David Edelsohn <dje.gcc@gmail.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org,
	Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>,
	       Ulrich Weigand <Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] powerpc64-aix ptrace64 when defined.
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 12:11:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <OF91B6D42F.B0CFCB9C-ON65257BC5.004284AA-65257BC5.0042F553@in.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGWvnynVeLt6F-QREsP_CtQvwvtZgwqHxtcS6pn58LMf=AX=GA@mail.gmail.com>


[ sending again without the line wrapping that makes it so hard to read]

David Edelsohn <dje.gcc@gmail.com> wrote on 08/09/2013 09:23:42 PM:

> From: David Edelsohn <dje.gcc@gmail.com>
> To: Raunaq 12/India/IBM@IBMIN, Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>, Ulrich Weigand
> <Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> Date: 08/09/2013 09:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] powerpc64-aix ptrace64 when defined.
>
> > When GDB is compiled in 64 BIT mode ptrace and ptracex calls are not defined on AIX.
> > So, instead we check if ptrace64 is defined, if it is then we call that instead of ptrace/x.
>
> Have you tested the patch in both 32 bit mode and 64 bit mode for both host GDB and target
> debugee?

Yes, ran the tests in testsuite/gdb.base and any new failures did not arise when

>I tried the earlier version of this patch from last year and experienced problems
> debugging in 32 bit mode (I no longer could debug GCC).

The earlier version of this patch was using ptrace64 only if BFD64 was defined,
i.e. when GDB was built in 64 BIT mode.
Did you build 32 bit gdb?
If so, according to the previous version of this patch,
no ptrace related calls were changed as ptrace64 was only
called if BFD64 was defined. Could you please resend the error you got while debugging
32 bit GCC to my mail id? I can look into it to see where the problem is coming from.

> ptrace, ptracex and ptrace64 are defined in syscalls.exp.
>
> ptrace64                syscall3264
> # 32
> ptrace                  syscall32
> ptracex                 syscall32

> As you wrote, ptrace and ptracex are 32 bit only API; ptrace64 is available as 32 bit and 64 bit
> API. ptrace64 is suppose to support 32 bit debugee targets, but I experienced problems.
>
> ptrace64 will be discovered as supported by configure when building 32 bit GDB.

> Is your intention to always use ptrace64 when it is available or only to use it for GDB hosted on
> 64 bit mode?

My initial intention was to use ptrace64 only if ptrace64 was available and
GDB was built in 64 BIT. But after a few discussions over this, I decided
to use ptrace64 when ever the API is defined.

So, this present patch would use
ptrace64 even for a 32 bit build as you rightly noticed.
This did not change the test results for a 32 bit build of GDB.

Thanks,
Raunaq M. Bathija


  parent reply	other threads:[~2013-08-12 12:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <CAGWvnynVeLt6F-QREsP_CtQvwvtZgwqHxtcS6pn58LMf=AX=GA@mail.gmail.com>
2013-08-12 12:02 ` Raunaq 12
2013-08-12 15:53   ` David Edelsohn
2013-08-12 12:11 ` Raunaq 12 [this message]
2013-08-12 19:43   ` David Edelsohn
2013-08-22 23:32     ` Joel Brobecker
2013-08-23  0:48       ` [RFA/ppc-aix] fix thread support breakage (was: "Re: [PATCH 4/5] powerpc64-aix ptrace64 when defined.") Joel Brobecker
2013-08-23  7:23         ` David Edelsohn
2013-08-23 13:34           ` Joel Brobecker
     [not found]             ` <CAGWvnyna5R2AR0imAC4W+aCJXPFjwPm+45yP9VOgkO68T7sF7w@mail.gmail.com>
     [not found]               ` <OFC7611E7B.F19F366D-ON65257BE2.003745A0-65257BE2.00386093@in.ibm.com>
2013-09-17 18:38                 ` [RFA/ppc-aix] fix thread support breakage Tom Tromey
2013-08-29 21:03         ` Checked in: [RFA/ppc-aix] fix thread support breakage (was: "Re: [PATCH 4/5] powerpc64-aix ptrace64 when defined.") Joel Brobecker
2013-08-10  2:57 [PATCH 4/5] powerpc64-aix ptrace64 when defined David Edelsohn
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2013-08-01 11:28 Raunaq 12
2013-08-01 13:26 ` Mark Kettenis
2013-08-02  6:56   ` Raunaq 12
     [not found]   ` <OF21D042FF.CF4E8435-ON65257BBB.0024F10A-65257BBB.00261FEF@LocalDomain>
2013-08-07 11:39     ` Raunaq 12
2013-08-07 13:36   ` Raunaq 12
2013-08-07 14:44     ` Ulrich Weigand
2013-07-29  6:17 Raunaq 12
2013-07-24 13:01 Raunaq 12

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=OF91B6D42F.B0CFCB9C-ON65257BC5.004284AA-65257BC5.0042F553@in.ibm.com \
    --to=raunaq12@in.ibm.com \
    --cc=Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=dje.gcc@gmail.com \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
    --cc=mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox