RE: [Patch] Microblaze: Port of Linux gdbserver

[Ajit Kumar Agarwal <ajit.kumar.agarwal@xilinx.com>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Pedro Alves [mailto:palves@redhat.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 11:33 PM
To: Ajit Kumar Agarwal; Michael Eager; Joel Brobecker
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Vinod Kathail; Vidhumouli Hunsigida; Nagaraju Mekala
Subject: Re: [Patch] Microblaze: Port of Linux gdbserver

On 10/17/2014 08:22 PM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:

> Gdb.base gdb testsuite is run and here is the status of gdb testsuite run for gdb.base.
> 
>                 === gdb Summary ===
> 
> # of expected passes            7804
> # of unexpected failures        2263

>>Over 2000 unexpected failures is not very reassuring though.
>>Have you looked at the logs to get an idea of what might be broken?

We have looked at the log files for the failures. Here are the main categories of the failure.

1. push_dummy_code is not implemented for Micro blaze port  due to this  there are 350+ failures.
2.  Failures for signals is around 357.
3. Watch point  failures are around 817.

Main total categories of the failure = 376 + 357 + 817 =  1550.

These failures are not because of  gdbserver patch and they seem to exist prior to this patch. 

> +microblaze-linux.c : $(srcdir)/../regformats/microblaze-with-stack-protect.dat $(regdat_sh)
> +	$(SHELL) $(regdat_sh) 
> +$(srcdir)/../regformats/microblaze-with-stack-protect.dat  
> +microblaze-linux.c

>>Please name give the .c file the same base name as the .dat file -> microblaze-with-stack-protect.c .

I will incorporate this.


> +/* Provide only a fill function for the general register set.

>>I don't understand this comment.  You have a store function just below?

Sorry. We meant by the comment that the below functions are used for fill_function and store_function.

> ps_lgetregs
> +   will use this for NPTL support.  */

> +
> +static void
> +microblaze_fill_gregset (struct regcache *regcache, void *buf) {
> +  int i;
> +
> +  for (i = 0; i < microblaze_num_regs; i++)
> +    microblaze_collect_ptrace_register (regcache, i,
> +                                        (char *) buf + 
> +microblaze_regmap[i]); }
> +
> +static void
> +microblaze_store_gregset (struct regcache *regcache, const void *buf) 
> +{
> +  int i;
> +
> +  for (i = 0; i < microblaze_num_regs; i++)
> +    supply_register (regcache, i, (char *) buf + 
> +microblaze_regmap[i]); }
> +
> +static struct regset_info microblaze_regsets[] = {
> +  { PTRACE_GETREGSET, PTRACE_SETREGSET, NT_PRSTATUS,
> +    sizeof (elf_gregset_t), GENERAL_REGS,
> +    microblaze_fill_gregset, microblaze_store_gregset },
> +  { 0, 0, 0, -1, -1, NULL, NULL },
> +  { 0, 0, 0, -1, -1, NULL, NULL }

>>Can't see why you'd need two "null" entries?

Thanks. Only one  entry is sufficient.

Thanks & Regards
Ajit

Thanks,
Pedro Alves