This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 0/4] Various build fixes for NetBSD
On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 10:59:38 AM coypu@sdf.org wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 10:20:17AM -0700, John Baldwin wrote:
> > I have build tested this in a NetBSD/amd64 7.1 VM. The KVM target
> > built for me, but I have not tested it. The debug registers changes
> > in NetBSD are newer than 7.1 so I was not able to build test those.
> >
> > coypu, can you please test this on your end and verify the debug
> > registers work on NetBSD/i386 or NetBSD/amd64? Can you also do some
> > simple testing of the KVM target on amd64?
>
> I had trouble with just those patches and had to make some changes.
> _KMEMUSER needs to be defined before all includes
Ok. Just in bsd-kvm.c, yes?
> I also needed this change for dbregs (they would not work on 7.x I
> guess)
>
> diff --git a/gdb/configure.nat b/gdb/configure.nat
> index d649c29f..db021a09 100644
> --- a/gdb/configure.nat
> +++ b/gdb/configure.nat
> @@ -339,7 +339,7 @@ case ${gdb_host} in
> i386)
> # Host: NetBSD/amd64
> NATDEPFILES="${NATDEPFILES} nbsd-nat.o amd64-nat.o \
> - x86-bsd-nat.o amd64-bsd-nat.o amd64-nbsd-nat.o bsd-kvm.o x86-dregs.o"
> + x86-bsd-nat.o amd64-bsd-nat.o x86-nat.o amd64-nbsd-nat.o bsd-kvm.o x86-dregs.o"
> LOADLIBES='-lkvm'
> ;;
> sparc)
Probably need this for NetBSD/i386 as well then.
> KVM target did not work. it claims it's not supported, but it might be
> misuse on my part:
>
> (gdb) target kvm /dev/kmem
> Undefined target command: "kvm /dev/kmem". Try "help target".
>
> it's how I would use it on netbsd's variant of gdb.
I looked again and amd64-nbsd-nat.c doesn't have the 'supply_pcb' hook that
bsd-kvm.c requires, so I will drop the patch that enables kvm on NetBSD/amd64.
> I don't know how to use debug registers, I'll ask around for more details.
Just set a watch point. GDB will report it as being set as a hardware watchpoint
in the CLI (and also via info watch).
> I've only tested amd64. I'll try to do more architectures later.
> thanks for your effort.
--
John Baldwin