Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] Propagate NT_RISCV_VECTOR from Linux kernel headers to binutils. The value is identical to pre-existing NT_RISCV_CSR but the note names different (NT_RISCV_CSR is "GDB" and NT_RISCV_VECTOR is "CORE")

[Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>]

On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 05:51:45 PDT (-0700), Andrew Burgess wrote:
> Greg Savin via Gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org> writes:
>
>> ---
>>  include/elf/common.h | 2 ++
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/elf/common.h b/include/elf/common.h
>> index e7eede23a07..d28f5c6ccf5 100644
>> --- a/include/elf/common.h
>> +++ b/include/elf/common.h
>> @@ -715,6 +715,8 @@
>>  					/*   note name must be "CORE".  */
>>  #define NT_RISCV_CSR    0x900		/* RISC-V Control and Status Registers */
>>  					/*   note name must be "GDB".  */
>> +#define NT_RISCV_VECTOR 0x900		/* RISC-V Vector Registers */
>> +					/*   note name must be "CORE".  */
>
> I'm not a binutils maintainer, but do have an interest from the
> RISC-V/GDB side.
>
> Given the comments you made in an earlier mail, I guess we're going to
> have to restructure some of the core file support in order to handle
> NT_RISCV_CSR and NT_RISCV_VECTOR having the same values.  But that
> should be doable.
>
> No objections to this patch from me.

NT_RISCV_VECTOR isn't in a releasted kernel, so it's not a stable uABI 
yet.  So there's still time to change it.  0I've got a revert on the 
kernel lists, it'd mean we miss 6.5 but we'd just end up in 6.6 which 
isn't so bad.

> Thanks,
> Andrew
>
>
>>  #define NT_SIGINFO	0x53494749	/* Fields of siginfo_t.  */
>>  #define NT_FILE		0x46494c45	/* Description of mapped files.  */
>>
>> --
>> 2.25.1