This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [design change] record-replay linux ABI level
- From: oza Pawandeep <oza dot pawandeep at gmail dot com>
- To: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gdb at sourceware dot org, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 14:19:22 +0530
- Subject: Re: [design change] record-replay linux ABI level
- References: <CAK1A=4xtgYd8hQEwHxjLQiv4eqhCu0cSRDmmbFJvBDJwDxUM+Q__46748.0269181125$1336555010$gmane$org@mail.gmail.com> <87sjf9qecr.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
Tom,
The definition of system call record maps fine to x86.
but arm syscall numbers are different. [partially]
for e.g. on x86 sycall number for sys_epoll_create = 254 while on ARM it is 250.
the more we go down on defined system calls the more the numbers are
differing on ARM and we loose one to one trivial mapping.
Regards,
Oza.
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:08 AM, Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "oza" == oza Pawandeep <oza.pawandeep@gmail.com> writes:
>
> oza> currently linux-record.h is having defination of
> oza> enum gdb_syscall {...} which seems generic one, but infact it only
> oza> addresses i386 arch.
>
> Based on reading the header, it seems to me that the idea is that this
> enum is intended to be generic, and that each target must provide its
> own mapping from the local syscalls to these.
>
> oza> I am thinking of moving all the definition to i386 specific files
> oza> (assuming there is no generic way to address all the systemcalls on
> oza> all arch).
>
> It seems to me that most syscalls could perhaps be shared, but maybe
> some architectures will require additions to the enum.
>
> I'm not sure, though.
>
> Could you say in more detail what problem you ran into?
>
> Tom