* [Bug tapsets/5555] signal-all-probes.stp and proc_snoop.stp fail on ia64
2008-01-08 21:52 [Bug tapsets/5555] New: signal-all-probes.stp and proc_snoop.stp fail on ia64 mhiramat at redhat dot com
@ 2008-01-08 21:52 ` mhiramat at redhat dot com
2008-01-08 21:53 ` mhiramat at redhat dot com
` (5 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: mhiramat at redhat dot com @ 2008-01-08 21:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: systemtap
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GCC target triplet| |ia64
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5555
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug tapsets/5555] signal-all-probes.stp and proc_snoop.stp fail on ia64
2008-01-08 21:52 [Bug tapsets/5555] New: signal-all-probes.stp and proc_snoop.stp fail on ia64 mhiramat at redhat dot com
2008-01-08 21:52 ` [Bug tapsets/5555] " mhiramat at redhat dot com
@ 2008-01-08 21:53 ` mhiramat at redhat dot com
2008-01-09 11:17 ` srinivasa at in dot ibm dot com
` (4 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: mhiramat at redhat dot com @ 2008-01-08 21:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: systemtap
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GCC host triplet| |ia64
GCC target triplet|ia64 |
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5555
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug tapsets/5555] signal-all-probes.stp and proc_snoop.stp fail on ia64
2008-01-08 21:52 [Bug tapsets/5555] New: signal-all-probes.stp and proc_snoop.stp fail on ia64 mhiramat at redhat dot com
2008-01-08 21:52 ` [Bug tapsets/5555] " mhiramat at redhat dot com
2008-01-08 21:53 ` mhiramat at redhat dot com
@ 2008-01-09 11:17 ` srinivasa at in dot ibm dot com
2008-01-09 14:43 ` fche at redhat dot com
` (3 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: srinivasa at in dot ibm dot com @ 2008-01-09 11:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: systemtap
------- Additional Comments From srinivasa at in dot ibm dot com 2008-01-09 11:16 -------
Even I face the same problem in ppc64(But I was not aware of ia64 case). I have
proposed the patch in bug#5151.
=========================================
tapset/signal.stp | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: src/tapset/signal.stp
===================================================================
--- src.orig/tapset/signal.stp
+++ src/tapset/signal.stp
@@ -385,7 +385,8 @@ probe signal.pending.return = kernel.fun
* regs : Address in the Kernel Mode stack area
*
*/
-probe signal.handle = kernel.function("handle_signal")
+probe signal.handle = kernel.function("handle_signal") ? ,
+ kernel.function("handle_signal32") ?
{
sig = $sig
sig_name = _signal_name($sig)
=================================================
Please find the equivalent function of handle_signal() in IA64 and add it here.
Thanks
Srinivasa DS
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5555
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug tapsets/5555] signal-all-probes.stp and proc_snoop.stp fail on ia64
2008-01-08 21:52 [Bug tapsets/5555] New: signal-all-probes.stp and proc_snoop.stp fail on ia64 mhiramat at redhat dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2008-01-09 11:17 ` srinivasa at in dot ibm dot com
@ 2008-01-09 14:43 ` fche at redhat dot com
2008-01-09 16:26 ` mhiramat at redhat dot com
` (2 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: fche at redhat dot com @ 2008-01-09 14:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: systemtap
------- Additional Comments From fche at redhat dot com 2008-01-09 14:42 -------
> -probe signal.handle = kernel.function("handle_signal")
> +probe signal.handle = kernel.function("handle_signal") ? ,
> + kernel.function("handle_signal32") ?
Why would both handle_signal and handle_signal32 be marked optional?
Could one of them be favoured with the "!" (optional & sufficient)
designation?
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5555
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug tapsets/5555] signal-all-probes.stp and proc_snoop.stp fail on ia64
2008-01-08 21:52 [Bug tapsets/5555] New: signal-all-probes.stp and proc_snoop.stp fail on ia64 mhiramat at redhat dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2008-01-09 14:43 ` fche at redhat dot com
@ 2008-01-09 16:26 ` mhiramat at redhat dot com
2010-05-13 18:07 ` fche at redhat dot com
2010-05-21 20:07 ` fche at redhat dot com
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: mhiramat at redhat dot com @ 2008-01-09 16:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: systemtap
------- Additional Comments From mhiramat at redhat dot com 2008-01-09 16:25 -------
As far as I can see, there is no equivalents of handle_signal on ia64.
One possible solution (just for passing tests!) is adding "?, never" to the
signal.handle probepoint.
However, I think it depends on bz1155(inline function parameters).
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
BugsThisDependsOn| |1155
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5555
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug tapsets/5555] signal-all-probes.stp and proc_snoop.stp fail on ia64
2008-01-08 21:52 [Bug tapsets/5555] New: signal-all-probes.stp and proc_snoop.stp fail on ia64 mhiramat at redhat dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2008-01-09 16:26 ` mhiramat at redhat dot com
@ 2010-05-13 18:07 ` fche at redhat dot com
2010-05-21 20:07 ` fche at redhat dot com
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: fche at redhat dot com @ 2010-05-13 18:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: systemtap
--
Bug 5555 depends on bug 1155, which changed state.
Bug 1155 Summary: inline function parameters
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1155
What |Old Value |New Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|SUSPENDED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5555
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug tapsets/5555] signal-all-probes.stp and proc_snoop.stp fail on ia64
2008-01-08 21:52 [Bug tapsets/5555] New: signal-all-probes.stp and proc_snoop.stp fail on ia64 mhiramat at redhat dot com
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2010-05-13 18:07 ` fche at redhat dot com
@ 2010-05-21 20:07 ` fche at redhat dot com
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: fche at redhat dot com @ 2010-05-21 20:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: systemtap
------- Additional Comments From fche at redhat dot com 2010-05-21 19:40 -------
With recent gcc, inline function arguments are more consistently accessible as
$vars.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |WORKSFORME
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5555
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread