This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org 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: Process record and replay checked in to main trunk

> Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 21:32:08 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
> CC: teawater@gmail.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> 
> As far as I know all open source Unix-like operating systems implement systemcalls using int0x80 amd/or syscall.

That still isn't general enough to cover every i386 target, is it?

Maybe I'm wrong in assuming that OS specifics should be kept out of
i386-tdep.c.

And I still don't understand why cannot some hypothetical i386 target
to use the _name_ i386_intx80_record to support sycalls that are
entered through an interrupt other than 80h.  Hui seemed to say this
name is reserved for syscalls through Int 80h.

If the name is not special, why not call it i386_syscall_record, for
example?
Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]