From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Fri, 24 Oct 2008 18:18:53 +0100 (BST) Received: from mail3.caviumnetworks.com ([12.108.191.235]:55962 "EHLO mail3.caviumnetworks.com") by ftp.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S22307410AbYJXRSV (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Oct 2008 18:18:21 +0100 Received: from exch4.caveonetworks.com (Not Verified[192.168.16.23]) by mail3.caviumnetworks.com with MailMarshal (v6,2,2,3503) id ; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:18:11 -0400 Received: from exch4.caveonetworks.com ([192.168.16.23]) by exch4.caveonetworks.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:18:10 -0700 Received: from dd1.caveonetworks.com ([64.169.86.201]) by exch4.caveonetworks.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:18:10 -0700 Message-ID: <49020352.1060705@caviumnetworks.com> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:18:10 -0700 From: David Daney User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080723) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ralf Baechle CC: Yoichi Yuasa , linux-mips Subject: Re: [PATCH][MIPS] fix kgdb build error References: <20081025001725.7ac18a1b.yoichi_yuasa@tripeaks.co.jp> <4901F851.8010103@caviumnetworks.com> <20081024170950.GC25297@linux-mips.org> In-Reply-To: <20081024170950.GC25297@linux-mips.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Oct 2008 17:18:10.0503 (UTC) FILETIME=[7D2EF570:01C935FC] Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 20948 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: ddaney@caviumnetworks.com Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips Ralf Baechle wrote: > On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 09:31:13AM -0700, David Daney wrote: > >> Yoichi Yuasa wrote: >>> ptrace.h needs #include >>> >> [...] >> >> Can you try this completely untested patch instead? >> >> If it works, I will give it a more thorough test over the next few >> weeks. > > This looks correct, I think. > > Though I was wondering about two special cases: > > o 32-bit debugger debugging a 64-bit process > o 64-bit debugger debugging a 32-bit process > > The unions make we wonder if that case was considered ... > The ptrace interface only gives access to the raw watch registers, their width and thus the union element used is determined by how the kernel was built (32 or 64 bit). It is up to the user space debugger to handle address space size issues. The current gdb patch has only been tested on 32 bit systems. David Daney