Re: PATCH] Update syscalls/{ppc64,ppc}-linux.xml

[Tom de Vries via Gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>]

On 5/10/22 22:18, Carl Love wrote:
> Tom:
> 
> On Tue, 2022-05-10 at 11:01 +0200, Tom de Vries via Gdb-patches
>> wrote:
>>> On 5/9/22 17:48, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Regenerate syscalls/{ppc64,ppc}-linux.xml on a system with 5.14
>>>> kernel.
>>>>
>>>> Note btw that it does not only add, but also renumbers, f.i.:
>>>> ...
>>>> -  <syscall name="unlinkat" number="286"/>
>>>> +  <syscall name="unlinkat" number="292"/>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Currently testing.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Here's a v2, with a gdb.base/catch-syscall.exp test-case fix
>>> included.
>>>
>>> Testing on ppc64le revealed:
>>> ...
>>> (gdb) catch syscall 286^M
>>> Catchpoint 2 (syscall 'openat' [286])^M
>>> (gdb) FAIL: gdb.base/catch-syscall.exp: multiple targets: insert
>>> catch
>>> syscall on syscall 286\
>>>    -- unlinkat on powerpc:common64
>>> ...
>>>
>>> FWIW, I've wrote a patch that exposes the same problem on x86_64-
>>> linux (
>>> https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2022-May/188881.html  ).
>>>
>>> Any comments?
>>
>> I have looked at the patch.  I don't see anything that is an
>> issue/problem on PowerPC.
> 
> Per Will's comment, to the extent that I can tell the syscall numbers
> are consistent with what I saw last year.  I did note that you add
> syscall 359 getrandom.  In other unrelated work on gdb record I get
> messages from gdb record about a couple of system calls that are not
> supported.  Number 359 was one of them, I don't recall the other one
> off the top of my head.  I had yet to run down what the name of the
> syscall is for 359 but hopefully it is getrandom.  Not sure if your
> patch will fix the gdb record issue or not.  I need to get back to
> digging into that more to find out.

Hi Carl,

AFAICT, there are two different gdb bits dealing with syscalls:
- catch syscall
- recording
.

The xml stuff seems to be used only for the catch syscall part, so I 
expect that this won't fix the recording issue.

Thanks,
- Tom