Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Update FreeBSD's syscall table

[Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>]

On 11/26/2018 08:31 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
> On 11/9/18 12:04 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
>> Relative to V2, this changes the "get syscalls" functions to pass in
>> an integer vector by reference to append syscall numbers to.  It also
>> adds a NEWS entry and fixes some other nits noted by reviewers on the
>> V2 series.
>>
>> John Baldwin (3):
>>   Change get_syscalls_by_group to append to an existing vector of
>>     integers.
>>   Add an optional "alias" attribute to syscall entries.
>>   Update the FreeBSD system call table to match FreeBSD 12.0.
>>
>>  gdb/ChangeLog                  |  41 ++++++++++++
>>  gdb/NEWS                       |   5 ++
>>  gdb/break-catch-syscall.c      |  25 ++------
>>  gdb/gdbarch.h                  |   3 -
>>  gdb/gdbarch.sh                 |   3 -
>>  gdb/syscalls/freebsd.xml       | 110 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>>  gdb/syscalls/gdb-syscalls.dtd  |   1 +
>>  gdb/syscalls/update-freebsd.sh |  78 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  gdb/xml-syscall.c              | 108 ++++++++++++++++----------------
>>  gdb/xml-syscall.h              |  20 +++---
>>  10 files changed, 279 insertions(+), 115 deletions(-)
>>  create mode 100755 gdb/syscalls/update-freebsd.sh
> 
> Ping?  Eli signed off on an updated NEWS entry earlier in the thread.  Any
> further comments on the code changes?
This looks good to me, though there's the issue with the non-const
references discussed here:

  https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-11/msg00351.html
  https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-11/msg00441.html
  https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-11/msg00443.html
  https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-11/msg00444.html

BTW:

> -  <syscall name="mknodat" number="498"/>
> +  <syscall name="freebsd11_mknodat" number="498" alias="mknodat"/>
> ...
> +  <syscall name="mknodat" number="559"/>

Does "catch syscall 498" catch only freebsd11_mknodat calls, or do
we for some reason end up catching calls to 559 as well?
I'd expect only 498.  What about "catch syscall 559"?

Thanks,
Pedro Alves