From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 90914 invoked by alias); 28 Apr 2015 20:28:55 -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 88946 invoked by uid 89); 28 Apr 2015 20:28:54 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 20:28:53 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0363FAC7DE; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 20:28:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unused-10-15-17-126.yyz.redhat.com [10.15.17.126]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t3SKSpPt022586 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA256 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 28 Apr 2015 16:28:51 -0400 From: Sergio Durigan Junior To: Pedro Alves Cc: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, dje@google.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/17] Catch syscall group References: <1430011521-24340-1-git-send-email-gabriel@krisman.be> <553F6BC0.9000905@redhat.com> X-URL: http://blog.sergiodj.net Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 00:45:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <553F6BC0.9000905@redhat.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Tue, 28 Apr 2015 12:15:12 +0100") Message-ID: <87r3r42e0v.fsf@redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-04/txt/msg01057.txt.bz2 On Tuesday, April 28 2015, Pedro Alves wrote: > I was wondering if we couldn't share most of the grouping > per-architecture, e.g., by having each arch syscall file xi:include a > base Linux default groups file, that listed the grouping without > the syscall number. E.g., create a linux-defaults.xml like: > > > ... > > > And then the arch-specific syscall files would do: > > > ... > > ... > > ... > > And then we teach gdb about syscall-default-groups, or > we could even instead preprocess the architecture xml to expand > the groups into each syscall with xsltproc (we already use > this tool, see gdb/features/Makefile and gdb/features/number-regs.xsl). Thanks for the review, Pedro. I think this is a nice idea, but I would like to propose that we accept the patches as-is, without this improvement, and then work on it later. First, it's been a long time since we're discussing this feature, and I don't want Krisman to not feel encouraged to continue contributing :-). Also, I think the syscall XML generation really needs a revamp, independently of how/if we use groups or not. There should be possible, for example, to easily update the XML's with the latest Linux kernel source. This task is on my plate, though it's a low priority. So, for now, I think Krisman's work is good enough. In sum: I propose we go ahead now ("don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good"), and concentrate on the XML problem later. Cheers, -- Sergio GPG key ID: 237A 54B1 0287 28BF 00EF 31F4 D0EB 7628 65FC 5E36 Please send encrypted e-mail if possible http://sergiodj.net/