From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pj1-x102e.google.com (mail-pj1-x102e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102e]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 343863858439 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 2021 15:44:08 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 343863858439 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=adacore.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=adacore.com Received: by mail-pj1-x102e.google.com with SMTP id b6so21983845pji.4 for ; Sun, 01 Aug 2021 08:44:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=adacore-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=jkl9CRWRnsAEvzvMclOmHWCgDpic7xkhnZOWAXL4/mU=; b=eiIckW99e0ArH/AYq+DY18o3RhWYHZdIS6WtHm2ReStQmmEo0aIIDUrHpRSKhPMYLq HlDSIlbhzkcp9qaaHxA4/RTvSz5aesayhBjikcfDzL/r/+2ejZ6yTlJaViHsJhYSsTXP BZ0wDv/Wo9IgD3XTjOVWJMgRlVgfD8IErUJEh8XS7tIRhZBBij5FpCvbQwUnCBn7uHqi qSCQ6xG6imRhwC3yYNlWVtbpCkWBhNiODToIEMB/8VYcwnUpXkZl69yUUHxs2R1xG7pn CJvcbx5tr/wC3b2RW0et26ni+VVnRERO9igCjoCRGXCoOsBpRUJIC8+10BluR1deQdGl sbnQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=jkl9CRWRnsAEvzvMclOmHWCgDpic7xkhnZOWAXL4/mU=; b=TCz0BezlXj4e4a/Xiv1e192ffvUC5y4AvJo+ByNQCavEis3yXvW7us1S1ob5N+tqPJ PCgrXxP+QfM+ye5b/qoWQsf4uyn1+EoEZpdMrphS+XgoHugcC45eHeUWn/R/OQXE8mO8 taYUeY+6by9vnn6a4/A1RJKKQGgoLs3FNvpMLV8kGY6XLmGgq9+ji2sMH5iy4Z45ESrV 4lyFZ4lxsoORnmheqI45cHrhGaPfu1vlIdrsBbxBVgy35vBVge49cDbCFlkOFbtG8EXD fjFqMs83b68IkEUkJ7lBseFTqJHm1GSNEfH2bpeeckXzXF70GydeAu7pj7SbLNfwr6ja uSWA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531//DkXZ1rb9ZZRNWFILWTfrtl/VvjPIWtndp4wF2Ff6JjI5A7H XC3Qklq90rSX4brqvSl82PKOD+D0boIl X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy5zt76NJ0gzBqtxFJKOy4/6B1tHBfxfF9dY6DDK+FpKSYtqc7KECqsC7y4ubjkY3Ktdfq+jA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:1786:b029:32c:c315:7348 with SMTP id s6-20020a056a001786b029032cc3157348mr12916482pfg.42.1627832647369; Sun, 01 Aug 2021 08:44:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from takamaka.home ([184.69.131.86]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n22sm8742875pff.57.2021.08.01.08.44.06 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 01 Aug 2021 08:44:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by takamaka.home (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 603CD89905; Sun, 1 Aug 2021 08:44:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2021 08:44:05 -0700 From: Joel Brobecker To: Simon Marchi Cc: Catalin Marinas , Joel Brobecker , Luis Machado via Gdb-patches , david.spickett@linaro.org Subject: Re: [PING][PATCH,v5][AArch64] MTE corefile support Message-ID: <20210801154405.GA471794@adacore.com> References: <20210518202047.3492211-1-luis.machado@linaro.org> <20210601174519.4157316-1-luis.machado@linaro.org> <20210711142200.GA637634@adacore.com> <20210714130702.GA9376@arm.com> <20210729181044.GD31848@arm.com> <7d85da38-1e88-1f1f-77fa-15dbe483538b@polymtl.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7d85da38-1e88-1f1f-77fa-15dbe483538b@polymtl.ca> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2021 15:44:09 -0000 > On 2021-07-29 2:10 p.m., Catalin Marinas wrote: > > I'm more worried about GDB 11 reading the MTE notes incorrectly rather > > than not reading them at all. > > Yeah, if a GDB 11 that knows how to read the pre-standardized notes does > not fail gracefully when encountering the standardized notes, it would > be bad. If it just skipped them and said "I don't recognize them", it > would be ok. Agreed. Is there a way we could check the notes? I looked at the patch, and it doesn't seem like there is any kind of versioning or identifier we could use to determine which version of the notes we get. But perhaps we can at least do some kind of consistency check, such as for instance comparing the size of the section with the contents of the section header, and generate an error if that doesn't match. The error might not be as informative, but perhaps still good enough? > Oh, ok, I thought it had already gone through some review cycles. Then > I'll leave it to you all to decide, those who have some stakes in this. -- Joel