This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH 3/4] 'catch syscall' feature -- XML support part

> Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 17:35:44 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <>
> Cc:,
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 12:25:33AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Does this mean we can be sure no new syscalls will be added to the
> > list, ever?
> Syscalls are continually added to the list.  But you don't need to
> know which ones are present on the current system - just to keep the
> files up to date in current versions of GDB.  Unknown syscalls should
> be displayed by number but otherwise handled just like known ones,
> I think.

What happens if I have a list of syscalls that includes some which are
unsupported by my kernel?  What would happen if I ask GDB to trace
those unsupported calls?

In the opposite case (a kernel that supports more syscalls than in the
list), I understand I get an error message if I request the syscall by
name, abut I should be able to request it by the number, right?  (This
should be described in the manual, and perhaps also said in the error

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]