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] PIE support for OpenBSD

On 12/22/11 2:20 AM, Mark Kettenis wrote:
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 15:39:04 -0800
From: Stan Shebs<>

On 12/21/11 1:26 PM, Mark Kettenis wrote:
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 18:13:15 +0100
From: Jan Kratochvil<>

On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 22:08:29 +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
For now this is OpenBSD-specific, but FreeBSD and NetBSD might
implement the PIOD_READ_AUXV request at some point too.
* inf-ptrace.c [PT_IO&& PIOD_READ_AUXV]
So why didn't you put it into *bsd*-nat.c files?
There is already PT_IO support code in inf-ptrace.c.  It makes sense
to keep it all together.  I guess I could move all that code into a
seperate bsd-nat.c file, but that's quite a big undertaking.  And
inf-ptrace.c *BSD really is the primary user of inf-ptrace.c anyway.
The various Linux targets only need it to support ancient versions of
the Linux kernels; linux-nat.c ovverrides everything except for
to_fetch_registers and to_store_registers.  And those are overridden
by most, if not all, *-linux-nat.c files.

I wonder if inf-ptrace.c could be retired altogether.  It was always
based on a weak assumption, that Unix variants would tend to have the
same syntax and semantics for the various ptrace commands, and I suspect
that more of its code is unreachable than is obvious from inspection,
what with configs overriding or on the verge of being retired themselves.
Almost all of the code is used on OpenBSD and the other BSDs.  It is
certainly true that systems have diverged.  This is especially true
for Linux where we have a lot of support code for dealing with threads
that sits on top of the code in inf-ptrace.c.  It still uses a fair
chunk of the code through linux_ops->to_create_inferior, to_attach,
to_detach and to_stop, to_resume and to_mourn_inferior, as pointed out
by Jan.  But I currently do see inf-ptrace.c primarily as BSD support
code and further decoupling the Linux code might make some sense.  But
you'd need to duplicate a fair amount of code to fully decouple
to_create_inferior for example.

Back to my origional diff. Any remaining objections to committing it as is?

Looks fine to me. It would be helpful to mention somewhere in the vicinity of the #if's that the code is BSD-specific or BSDish, so as to forestall people hunting around in other OS headers wondering if those macros are defined or not.


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