This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: glibc-2.1.3, asm/elf.h and PPC kernels with AltiVec support
At 01:18 04.02.00 , Mark Kettenis wrote:
> Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 15:04:38 -0800
> From: Geoff Keating <email@example.com>
> > From: Franz Sirl <Franz.Sirlfirstname.lastname@example.org>
> > Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 22:19:51 +0100
> > Cc: Andreas Tobler <email@example.com>
> > >I think the correct fix would be a separate sys/elf.h for PPC, like
> > >x86 and arm already do.
> I think this is OK in principle. We're trying to move away from using
> kernel header files.
>But I'm not sure whether adding a seperate sys/elf.h for PPC is a good
>idea. Why not add the necessary types directly to sys/procfs.h? IMHO
>adding sys/elf.h for i386 was a mistake. Simply copying the mistakes
>that were made for i386 to PPC doesn't seem very productive to me.
>The reason for the existence of sys/procfs.h is for the definitions
>for the layout of the special sections in ELF core-dumps. The kernel
>uses names prefixed with elf_, but the kernel headers make them also
>available under the traditional SVR4 names. In principle only these
>(thus without the elf_ prefix) are needed by GDB so one might choose
>to export these only.
>There is one caveat though. The register sets used in core-dumps
>might differ from those used in signal contexts/user contexts. This
>happens on Solaris and Linux/i386. That's why prgregset_t and
>prfpregset_t exist. On PPC the register sets seem to be identical so
>the `typedef gregset_t prgregset_t' in sys/procfs.h is probably right.
Well, including them in sys/procfs.h is fine for me, if that's the way to
go. Probably the ARM people should revert their recently introduced
sys/elf.h as well? At least that's what I used as a template :-) (I only
look at x86 stuff as a last resort, other platforms are usually much cleaner).
> > >If there are no objections, I'll put together such a file and post
> it later
> > >today with the corresponding changes to other files.
> This seems to be missing a lot of stuff. In particular, the
> ELF_EXEC_PAGESIZE and ELF_CORE_COPY_REGS macros.
>Are these really meant to be used in userspace? GDB doens't use
>them. I doubt that they're really needed.
gdb builds fine for me, so it seems they are really not used. I couldn't
find a single reference to these macros in the gdb sources too.