From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2652 invoked by alias); 5 Nov 2008 04:22:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 2634 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Nov 2008 04:22:36 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout1.012.net.il (HELO mtaout1.012.net.il) (84.95.2.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 05 Nov 2008 04:21:55 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.i-mtaout1.012.net.il by i-mtaout1.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0K9U00I00ETSVL00@i-mtaout1.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Wed, 05 Nov 2008 06:23:12 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.126.241.172]) by i-mtaout1.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0K9U00IX9EUORK70@i-mtaout1.012.net.il>; Wed, 05 Nov 2008 06:23:12 +0200 (IST) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2008 04:22:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] 'catch syscall' feature -- XML support part In-reply-to: <20081104223544.GD5391@caradoc.them.org> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: sergiodj@linux.vnet.ibm.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: References: <1225773086.24532.55.camel@miki> <20081104222225.GA5391@caradoc.them.org> <20081104223544.GD5391@caradoc.them.org> 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: 2008-11/txt/msg00072.txt.bz2 > Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 17:35:44 -0500 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > Cc: sergiodj@linux.vnet.ibm.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 12:25:33AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Does this mean we can be sure no new syscalls will be added to the > > list, ever? > > Syscalls are continually added to the list. But you don't need to > know which ones are present on the current system - just to keep the > files up to date in current versions of GDB. Unknown syscalls should > be displayed by number but otherwise handled just like known ones, > I think. What happens if I have a list of syscalls that includes some which are unsupported by my kernel? What would happen if I ask GDB to trace those unsupported calls? In the opposite case (a kernel that supports more syscalls than in the list), I understand I get an error message if I request the syscall by name, abut I should be able to request it by the number, right? (This should be described in the manual, and perhaps also said in the error message.)