This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFA: Support libthread_db xregs interface
- From: Jim Blandy <jimb at redhat dot com>
- To: Andrew Cagney <cagney at gnu dot org>, Mark Kettenis <kettenis at jive dot nl>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: 25 Aug 2004 00:07:07 -0500
- Subject: Re: RFA: Support libthread_db xregs interface
- References: <vt2pt5wvsjf.fsf@zenia.home> <412A55E8.3060100@gnu.org>
Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org> writes:
> > + v:=:const struct regset *:xregs_regset:::0
>
> Mark's regset change added both the "regset.h" object and the
> regset_from_core_section architecture method. They, together, replace
> the old *-nat.c:fill_regset et.al. calls.
>
> Can we implement the equivalent here for ptrace/thread-db?
Not sure what you mean. This change lets a gdbarch object specify a
regset which the libthread_db support code will then use to read and
write additional registers beyond those covered by gregset_t and
fpregset_t. So this change does provide a regset.h-style regset for
libthread_db. That's what you're looking for, right?
> Instead of:
> > + if (! warned_xregs_not_implemented)
> > + {
> > + warning ("thread debugging library is too old to access "
> > + "%s registers.",
> > + gdbarch_xregs_name (current_gdbarch));
> can we use "complaint". That "thread" should be "Thread".
Sure.
> > + v:=:int:xregs_size:::0
> > + v:=:const char *:xregs_name:::0
>
> I gather these were fields in the original xreg_desc object but are
> missing from the "regset"? Should these, instead be added to the
> regset, or a new object extending regset created?
I was wondering about that, too. It'd certainly be neater. Mark,
what's your take on this?