From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eli Zaretskii To: Kevin Buettner Cc: Robert Lipe , David Taylor , Michael Snyder , Nick Duffek , Peter Schauer , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH RFA] procfs.c related changes for AIX 5 Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 01:11:00 -0000 Message-id: References: <1010306025828.ZM8793@ocotillo.lan> X-SW-Source: 2001-03/msg00103.html On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Kevin Buettner wrote: > 2) AIX5 does not have a static set of syscalls. Consequently, there > is no sys/syscall.h file which provides a nice mapping of > symbolic names to syscall numbers. Instead, AIX5 provides > /proc/PID/sysent which contains the information necessary to map > strings to syscall numbers. > > These syscall numbers are guaranteed (at least according to the > developer that I spoke with) to be fixed for the lifetime of a > process, but they can certainly vary between processes. Won't this cause problems with debugging syscall-related code, since the values for GDB and the debuggee may be different? > The changes needed to the code due to this change were fairly > significant: > > a) sysset_t data structures (or data structures which contain > sysset_t) must be dynamically allocated. They must be > copied with memcpy() and explicitly freed when no longer > needed. > > b) Comparisons against SYS_* constants no longer work. I've > introduced a number of predicate functions (such as > syscall_is_exit()) which will indicate whether a > given system call number is a particular system call. All code > which formerly relied on comparisons against a system call > number was rewritten to call one of these new predicate > functions instead. Shouldn't these be documented somehow in gdbint.texinfo?