From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-42828-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 30498 invoked by alias); 12 Nov 2013 23:00:53 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 30327 invoked by uid 89); 12 Nov 2013 23:00:47 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,FREEMAIL_FROM,RDNS_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-HELO: mail-bk0-f42.google.com
Received: from Unknown (HELO mail-bk0-f42.google.com) (209.85.214.42) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 23:00:46 +0000
Received: by mail-bk0-f42.google.com with SMTP id w16so2597270bkz.29        for <gdb@sourceware.org>; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:00:37 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.205.37.132 with SMTP id te4mr4042924bkb.29.1384297237172; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:00:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.204.245.195 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:00:37 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAPGNrUX+pYbf5V7_p50uRy_3vL33ZYYJUCxwbzaFtw0sMc6nEA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPGNrUX7TA-4eCrrP=sD9G6oNe5Kw=eWPm_jm-D7=9ZTz-v6BA@mail.gmail.com>	<CAEG7qUx69s2cdp4XY3cGtAakDQAoSrGnbhgvvLxUzZG+rJKC_g@mail.gmail.com>	<CAEG7qUyR8OZ=XGy0WwK=1UW46afS=e-67Hs=P3XToxKA1Q9+Pw@mail.gmail.com>	<CAPGNrUX+pYbf5V7_p50uRy_3vL33ZYYJUCxwbzaFtw0sMc6nEA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 23:00:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAPGNrUXsgV1=fZV1bpSMU33RZ-M7rdngSujZ22xwGOzTRdbkVA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: back into the thread....
From: Mark Manning <mark4th@gmail.com>
To: Sterling Augustine <saugustine@google.com>
Cc: gdb@sourceware.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg00054.txt.bz2

disregard, you pasted in the new copy but missed the initial # on the
first include. i also missed that :)

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Mark Manning <mark4th@gmail.com> wrote:
> tried to compile your code but all i get is about 400 errors related
> to error unknown type name 'size_t' from stdlib.h.
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Sterling Augustine
> <saugustine@google.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Sterling Augustine
>> <saugustine@google.com> wrote:
>>> This feature clearly works.
>>>
>>
>> .. This time with a couple of cleanups. The old example definitely
>> works, this just eliminates an extraneous call to malloc and an
>> uninitialized variable.
>>
>> include <stdio.h>
>> #include <stdlib.h>
>> #include <sys/mman.h>
>> #include <string.h>
>> #include <malloc.h>
>>
>> const char bytes[] = { 0x89, 0xf8, 0xc3 };
>> #define EXEC_BYTES sizeof(bytes)
>>
>> typedef int(*function_ptr)(int);
>>
>> int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>> {
>>   int test_val = 5;
>>   int return_val;
>>   function_ptr dst;
>>   if (posix_memalign((void **) &dst, 4096*8, EXEC_BYTES) != 0) {
>>     printf("can't allocate.\n");
>>     exit (-1);
>>   }
>>   if (mprotect(dst, EXEC_BYTES, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE|PROT_EXEC) != 0) {
>>     printf("can't mprotect\n");
>>     exit (-1);
>>   }
>>
>>   if (argc > 1)
>>     test_val = atoi(argv[1]);
>>
>>   memcpy(dst, bytes, EXEC_BYTES);
>>
>>   return_val = dst(test_val);
>>   printf("return val was %d\n", return_val);
>>   return 0;
>> }
>
>
>
> --
> "When something can be read without effort,
> great effort has gone into its writing."
>
> -- Enrique Jardiel Poncela --



-- 
"When something can be read without effort,
great effort has gone into its writing."

-- Enrique Jardiel Poncela --