From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14905 invoked by alias); 6 May 2009 13:34:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 14890 invoked by uid 22791); 6 May 2009 13:34:52 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com (HELO ti-out-0910.google.com) (209.85.142.189) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 06 May 2009 13:34:46 +0000 Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id a1so10256tib.12 for ; Wed, 06 May 2009 06:34:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.110.8.5 with SMTP id 5mr93239tih.14.1241616882989; Wed, 06 May 2009 06:34:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <837i0ve39f.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83ws91c5sp.fsf@gnu.org> <83prepdss5.fsf@gnu.org> <83ab5re5mz.fsf@gnu.org> <200905051932.n45JW8Xk001860@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <837i0ve39f.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 13:34:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Process record and replay checked in to main trunk From: Hui Zhu To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-05/txt/msg00113.txt.bz2 Hi Eli, On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 03:52, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 21:32:08 +0200 (CEST) >> From: Mark Kettenis >> CC: teawater@gmail.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org >> >> As far as I know all open source Unix-like operating systems implement s= ystemcalls using int0x80 amd/or syscall. > > That still isn't general enough to cover every i386 target, is it? > I think it cover most of them. > Maybe I'm wrong in assuming that OS specifics should be kept out of > i386-tdep.c. This just a interface. Any OS that use intx80 and sysenter to do some special thing (for example system call) will set it. > > And I still don't understand why cannot some hypothetical i386 target > to use the _name_ i386_intx80_record to support sycalls that are > entered through an interrupt other than 80h. =A0Hui seemed to say this > name is reserved for syscalls through Int 80h. > > If the name is not special, why not call it i386_syscall_record, for > example? Because some os use intx80, others use sysenter. Linux is special. Linux 2.4 use intx80, 2.6 use sysenter. Thanks, Hui