From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <systemtap-return-24576-listarch-systemtap=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 94595 invoked by alias); 21 Jun 2016 18:41:41 -0000
Mailing-List: contact systemtap-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <systemtap.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:systemtap-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Post: <mailto:systemtap@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:systemtap-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faqs>
Sender: systemtap-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 94401 invoked by uid 48); 21 Jun 2016 18:41:29 -0000
From: "dsmith at redhat dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
To: systemtap@sourceware.org
Subject: [Bug tapsets/12748] need syscall-number database in tapset
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 18:41:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: systemtap
X-Bugzilla-Component: tapsets
X-Bugzilla-Version: unspecified
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: dsmith at redhat dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution:
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: systemtap at sourceware dot org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-12748-6586-d58xXvytE9@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-12748-6586@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-12748-6586@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2016-q2/txt/msg00267.txt.bz2

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D12748

--- Comment #7 from David Smith <dsmith at redhat dot com> ---
Comment on attachment 9345
  --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=3D9345
proposed patch

Right now the script only handles x86_64, ppc64, and s390x. I'd like to see=
 it
handle an arch that has only one ABI (like i686, arm, or aarch64). That will
flush out some issues I'd bet.

I'll bikeshed the following:

=3D=3D=3D=3D
function syscall_name(num) {
%( CONFIG_COMPAT =3D=3D "y" %?
    if (@__compat_task)
        return __syscall_32_num2name[num]
%)
    if (%{ BITS_PER_LONG %} =3D=3D 64)
        return __syscall_64_num2name[num]
    else
        return __syscall_32_num2name[num]
}
=3D=3D=3D=3D

It would be a bit better as:

=3D=3D=3D=3D
function syscall_name(num) {
%( CONFIG_COMPAT =3D=3D "y" %?
   if (@__compat_task)
        return __syscall_32_num2name[num]
%)
%( CONFIG_64BIT =3D=3D "y" %?
   return __syscall_64_num2name[num]
%:
   return __syscall_32_num2name[num]
%)
}
=3D=3D=3D=3D

The new version converts that 64-bit runtime check to a compile-time check.=
 The
same thing can be done to the syscall_num() function.

How do you see syscall_map() being used? Is it just for use by the testsuit=
e?

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.