From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8850 invoked by alias); 1 Nov 2003 00:47:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 8840 invoked from network); 1 Nov 2003 00:47:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 Nov 2003 00:47:08 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.24 #1 (Debian)) id 1AFjv1-0003BO-ME for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 19:47:07 -0500 Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2003 00:47:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: lin-lwp.c and UltraSPARC Message-ID: <20031101004707.GA12182@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <200310312038.h9VKc88W000928@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <1031031233150.ZM4663@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1031031233150.ZM4663@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-11/txt/msg00000.txt.bz2 On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 04:31:51PM -0700, Kevin Buettner wrote: > On Oct 31, 9:38pm, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > I'm also thinking about replacing the PTRACE_PEEKUSER with a > > PTRACE_PEEKDATA since the latter should be implemented on all > > architectures. In that case the call would probably fail the same way > > on all architectures (assuming that nothing is mapped at address 0 on > > all those architectures). > > This sounds like a good idea. Yes, I agree. Interesting, this explains a number of pending Debian bug reports... you could also PEEKDATA at an address that we expect to be mapped. $sp might work. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer