From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 88781 invoked by alias); 2 Mar 2018 15:39:23 -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 88391 invoked by uid 89); 2 Mar 2018 15:39:22 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=manufacturing, manufacture X-HELO: eggs.gnu.org Received: from eggs.gnu.org (HELO eggs.gnu.org) (208.118.235.92) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 02 Mar 2018 15:39:21 +0000 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ermmC-0003Uk-Oa for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Fri, 02 Mar 2018 10:39:19 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:59139) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ermmC-0003UY-Kb; Fri, 02 Mar 2018 10:39:16 -0500 Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=3459 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1ermmB-0004Su-Sk; Fri, 02 Mar 2018 10:39:16 -0500 Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2018 15:39:00 -0000 Message-Id: <838tbawkpa.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" CC: markus.t.metzger@intel.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: (macro@mips.com) Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] btrace: set/show record btrace cpu Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <1519379570-16643-1-git-send-email-markus.t.metzger@intel.com> <1519379570-16643-2-git-send-email-markus.t.metzger@intel.com> <83woz34xuj.fsf@gnu.org> <83lgff1s4n.fsf@gnu.org> <83y3jez3yw.fsf@gnu.org> <83po4pyvji.fsf@gnu.org> <83muzryhql.fsf@gnu.org> <837eqvy5on.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-03/txt/msg00063.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 14:15:20 +0000 > From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" > CC: Eli Zaretskii , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" > > > On Thu, 1 Mar 2018, Metzger, Markus T wrote: > > > The term "erratum" already means 'bug somewhere in the processor'. > > The term "erratum" is generic and usually means a mistake in a published > text. You need to be more specific and clarify what the term means in > this context. > > I think that Eli's proposal sounds about right, except that I agree that > "firmware" does not really fit here; an erratum may be present in hardware > logic or in microcode, or it may even be a phenomenon of the manufacturing > process, e.g. cases have been known where a malfunction of a specific CPU > operation was caused by thermal effects in silicon in otherwise seemingly > correct logic. This makes a "processor erratum" a broad term and > therefore I think this specific case does not belong to the concept index. > > So how about: > > Processor errata are known to exist that can cause a trace not to match > the specification. Trace decoders that are unaware of these errata > might fail to decode such a trace. @value{GDBN} can detect erroneous > trace packets and correct them, thus avoiding the decoding failures. > These corrections or workarounds are enabled based on the processor on > which the trace was recorded. That still doesn't explain what are those errata. How about replacing the first sentence above with these two: Processor errata are defects in processor operation, caused by its design or manufacture. They can cause a trace not to match the specification.