From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id f5K0Ko88j2gd+gIAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 03 Aug 2025 06:40:15 -0400 Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=sourceware.org header.i=@sourceware.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=N5zeu4yK; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 9C5BB1E102; Sun, 3 Aug 2025 06:40:15 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.1 (2024-03-25) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.1 required=5.0 tests=ARC_SIGNED,ARC_VALID,BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED,RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=4.0.1 Received: from server2.sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BD8F1E089 for ; Sun, 3 Aug 2025 06:40:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B01583858C83 for ; Sun, 3 Aug 2025 10:40:13 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org B01583858C83 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1754217613; bh=Ca7Z6f8JaRiJ3zXLSa9s7O84DFWLNX4YqrGW3y26u00=; h=To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From:Reply-To:From; b=N5zeu4yK1yQxXQQIelMk7z1KbOrXynNg21fr9tQ/pPdWkmO9KiGmmde7zICg5csur sLpgPLthw7UkPxGQHBP5vfAkBTEY4Kg+9OAAUGt3A8J6MaWWxB6SKr+iLbk4hBYkT3 P8cOMLU0fphHmitEQJxxiMv3fsmab5YLWDR2d57o= Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (dev.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A53E53858D1E for ; Sun, 3 Aug 2025 10:39:28 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org A53E53858D1E ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org A53E53858D1E ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1754217568; cv=none; b=woZQ0TOv4lYsJ9TyIssYuXLSMSHbc0Q+f9Fg52LZ/jXMiB4RSAg81Aynk3DORhquWz+9jEf7o3r8DY2yu800i2ETGVrO4elfr1xQg2auhYoHApyGiRNbQef//0b2bkGz7h6ChkFtx1vZB9qGD9CYszyzIymx3ZPVfFOvtomOxzo= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1754217568; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Ca7Z6f8JaRiJ3zXLSa9s7O84DFWLNX4YqrGW3y26u00=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=Rr+oPce59c0pRshj5GbTiV4KlOflOpZzG340Y3yLKvEq1x52prb7u0FYNu43sex3tZ/t7UVmitv5WXN3oS+KjqPDtpNBJOpu8/TqeMBJS35ZcMZhn8KIyPUH5GWjpY/Yg0vHft4xIp99ISomP9ePgCZYxQnujovWv012Ukcz+oA= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A53E53858D1E Received: from mop.sam.mop (unknown [82.8.138.118]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange secp256r1 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: sam) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8E40C340CF1; Sun, 03 Aug 2025 10:39:24 +0000 (UTC) To: Qi Su via Gdb Cc: Qi Su , jose.marchesi@oracle.com Subject: Re: [BPF] Maintenance status and breakpoint/register questions In-Reply-To: Organization: Gentoo References: User-Agent: mu4e 1.12.11; emacs 31.0.50 Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2025 11:39:21 +0100 Message-ID: <87jz3ky9ie.fsf@gentoo.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: gdb@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Sam James via Gdb Reply-To: Sam James Errors-To: gdb-bounces~public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb" Qi Su via Gdb writes: > Hi Jose and gdb folks, > > Hope you're doing well. I've been digging into GDB's BPF target and wanted > to check a few things before I start cleaning up patches. > > 1. Maintenance status > The last commits touching `gdb/bpf` seem over a year old, and I haven=E2= =80=99t > seen much recent activity. Is the port still actively maintained? Also, is > there any internal code at Oracle=E2=80=94docs, test cases, examples=E2= =80=94that could be > upstreamed or shared? Ports in gdb don't tend to require particularly high levels of commits. I'm not saying there isn't stuff to be done, but I don't think the activity level is alarming (at least to me).=20 The only BPF specific file in gdb is gdb/bpf-tdep.c and that's not so big by design. Is there something more specific you're concerned about? (I'm not saying there is or isn't some problem with the bpf port, I'm just curious as I hadn't seen anything as a problem.) > [...] sam