Re: [PATCH] Implement 'catch syscall' for gdbserver

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>]

> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, sergiodj@redhat.com, palves@redhat.com,
>         philippe.waroquiers@skynet.be
> From: Josh Stone <jistone@redhat.com>
> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 10:39:03 -0700
> 
> >> +Note that if a syscall not member of the list is reported, @value{GDBN}
> >                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > "a syscall not in the list" sounds simpler and more clear, and doesn't
> > change the meaning.
> > 
> >> +will filter it if this syscall is not caught.  It is however more efficient
> >> +to only report the needed syscalls.
> > 
> > The question is about the same sentence: maybe because I don't really
> > use this stuff, I'm not sure I understand the distinction between
> > "reported" and "caught" here: what does it mean for a syscall to be
> > reported, but not caught?  Perhaps this text should be clarified to
> > not cause such confusion.
> 
> "Reported" refers to syscall stop packets sent over the wire, whereas
> "caught" refers to whether the GDB user had `catch syscall N` matching
> that particular syscall.

Ah, okay.  What tripped me was the ambiguity of "caught": you meant to
say that the user issued the "catch syscall N" command, whereas I
interpreted it to mean that GDB already caught the syscall.

So maybe reword as follows:

  Note that if a syscall not in the list is reported, @value{GDBN}
  will filter it if this syscall is not being caught due to the
  corresponding @code{catch syscall} command.

Thanks.