From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B0743858C35 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2023 15:52:47 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 2B0743858C35 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark.ca ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 2B0743858C35 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=158.69.221.121 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1701100368; cv=none; b=TagLFNdZesGMjj9PWw9n9mqgQuLM1iImoDbu1DW33n05PSDCkt/bxiHCx+L6vSPU3UVwqEx3JDfmurbBCqG7k8vpw6EyD8cLnVF7JsW2h6hzeMw73zct5DYObA/tr40hoykOymTF6ANgqzQEn8THHnqaeKhhvzpcbUSmmmSFcHg= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1701100368; c=relaxed/simple; bh=3BBGeRhtwX9+toFlYWtFKug0FQo31mOTVKwEGb32XKc=; h=DKIM-Signature:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From; b=n2icXbz7QrrwLJBEwnXdUXareDJraowZuyt9JAOa3v7KpLkes787PvUYU8B1Duv21wE+xMSrVb+8b1ArZto0OAHxDHLtopwmGBlvcWXZTRyvj8h660pPBvytL2/ywo9ROzNt4Yw0uZGPYxSkRnhiqkIOfCOxe2w+eX74hmfBFJs= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=simark.ca; s=mail; t=1701100366; bh=3BBGeRhtwX9+toFlYWtFKug0FQo31mOTVKwEGb32XKc=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=QXGFaAq0f3//2eMcD4sXPX8yW2CIW1aMuPQmYE7znmSPRV8wQEORYdwFV4/FkCQ0S D1lxtxyGcXzPWglDBdxj2yfmzMvYpAcVY01wucyZvqAbjaPo77Sh3DvKs9+jFcJ551 fVJsbUftv6AFb2EmWM71l5qv2npXjkM6NsmaIgIA= Received: from [172.16.0.146] (192-222-143-198.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.143.198]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 37A301E091; Mon, 27 Nov 2023 10:52:46 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <76d0f97a-a2ff-42d0-a31b-49d7b155080f@simark.ca> Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2023 10:52:45 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] [gdb/tdep] Add syscall number cache To: Tom de Vries , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20231122091020.8640-1-tdevries@suse.de> Content-Language: fr From: Simon Marchi In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On 11/24/23 17:19, Tom de Vries wrote: >> If we're going to use lp->syscall_number (if it is not -1) and it >> disagrees with gdbarch_get_syscall_number, what's the point in calling >> gdbarch_get_syscall_number in the first place? > > The debug printf that notes the override of gdbarch_get_syscall_number by the cached syscall number. > >> Should the logic be: >> >> if (new_syscall_state == TARGET_WAITKIND_SYSCALL_RETURN >> && lp->syscall_number != -1) >> // use lp->syscall_number >> else >> // call gdbarch_get_syscall_number >> >> ? > > If we don't care about that particular type of debug printf, then yes. In my opinion it doesn't add any value to call gdbarch_get_syscall_number just to be able to make that debug printf. Simon