From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2006 invoked by alias); 2 Dec 2013 08:38:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 1985 invoked by uid 89); 2 Dec 2013 08:38:01 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,RDNS_NONE,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from Unknown (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 02 Dec 2013 08:37:33 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-exc-10.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.58]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1VnP0H-0003Xv-Fq from ChungLin_Tang@mentor.com ; Mon, 02 Dec 2013 00:37:17 -0800 Received: from SVR-ORW-FEM-03.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.97.39]) by SVR-ORW-EXC-10.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 2 Dec 2013 00:37:17 -0800 Received: from 111-241-160-220.dynamic.hinet.net (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-03.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.97.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.247.3; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 00:37:15 -0800 Message-ID: <529C46BA.8050403@codesourcery.com> Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 08:38:00 -0000 From: Chung-Lin Tang User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker CC: , Sandra Loosemore Subject: Re: [patch, nios2] Update Linux parts for new syscall ABI References: <529AF143.9060704@codesourcery.com> <20131202032333.GN3114@adacore.com> <529C107E.10308@codesourcery.com> <20131202074423.GS3114@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20131202074423.GS3114@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-12/txt/msg00020.txt.bz2 On 13/12/2 3:44 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote: >> Is Sandra not nios2 maintainer, or is she just not yet added to the >> MAINTAINERS file? > > She is not maintainer as far as I know (yet?). Then I guess something was missed during the port submission? Is nios2 currently (technically) maintainer-less? ^^;; >>>> 2013-12-01 Chung-Lin Tang >>>> >>>> gdb/ >>>> * nios2-linux-tdep.c (nios2_linux_sigreturn_init): Remove. >>>> (nios2_linux_sigreturn_tramp_frame): Remove. >>>> (nios2_linux_rt_sigreturn_tramp_frame): Update rt_sigreturn syscall >>>> number. >>>> (nios2_linux_syscall_next_pc): Likewise. Remove sigreturn case. >>>> (nios2_linux_init_abi): >>>> Remove registration of nios2_linux_sigreturn_tramp_frame. >>> >>> My concern with your patch is that it seems to eliminate support for >>> the previous syscall ABI, which means a break in compatibility. Unless >>> we really have no other choice, I don't think we would want that. >> >> This is a coordinated change, Altera will be using the new syscall ABI >> when they upstream the kernel port. > > I understand that. But is it conceivable that someone might be wanting > to use the new GDB while still running on the old kernel, with the old > software convention? How about the transition period? A break in > compatibility is very unfriendly for the average user, and needs > to be carefully considered. nios2 support will only appear in the next 7.7 release. We're trying to ensure only new-ABI support appears in formal FSF releases across all toolchain components. > I don't have any personal interest in this, other than trying to serve > the interest of the potential users. If it's deemed too hard or useless > by the nios community, then I won't object. I can't personally judge what the community will react. However, our work with Altera is to move everything towards the new syscall ABI. The upstreamed ports of GCC and glibc will also be entirely new-ABI. Thanks, Chung-Lin