This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 1/4] 'catch syscall' feature -- Architecture-independent part
- From: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman at br dot ibm dot com>
- To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- Cc: Sérgio Durigan Júnior <sergiodj at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 20:11:27 -0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] 'catch syscall' feature -- Architecture-independent part
- References: <1225773079.24532.52.camel@miki> <ubpwvureh.fsf@gnu.org>
El mar, 04-11-2008 a las 23:12 +0200, Eli Zaretskii escribiÃ:
> Who said that a syscall is necessarily defined by some number?
I assumed every OS used numbers to define syscalls ...
> More generally, let's say I'd like to implement support for this on
> Windows -- how would I need to go about it?
... but from what you are saying it seems that in Windows it's
different. What's the proper datatype to represent a syscall there?
> > + /* Checking if the user provided a syscall name or a number. */
> > + if (isdigit (cur_name[0]))
>
> Is the assumption that no name will ever begin with a digit
> universally valid?
Syscall names need to be valid function names in at least the most
common programming languages. I'm far from being a specialist, but isn't
it a very common (or universal?) restriction that function names have to
start with a non-digit character?
--
[]'s
Thiago Jung Bauermann
IBM Linux Technology Center