Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 4 Jun 2009 21:50:49 -0400 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] kgdbts: unify/generalize gdb breakpoint adjustment | From | Mike Frysinger <> |
| |
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 21:04, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 20:55:40 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 20:50, Andrew Morton wrote: >> > On Tue, __2 Jun 2009 03:17:30 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: >> >> + __ __ instruction_pointer(&kgdbts_regs) += offset; >> > >> > instruction_pointer() cannot be used as an lvalue, thankfully. >> > >> > x86_64: >> > >> > drivers/misc/kgdbts.c: In function 'check_and_rewind_pc': >> > drivers/misc/kgdbts.c:306: error: invalid lvalue in assignment >> >> should be easy to fix: >> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/ptrace.h >> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/ptrace.h >> @@ -236,10 +236,7 @@ >> #endif >> } >> >> -static inline unsigned long instruction_pointer(struct pt_regs *regs) >> -{ >> - return regs->ip; >> -} >> +#define instruction_pointer(regs) ((regs)->ip) >> >> static inline unsigned long frame_pointer(struct pt_regs *regs) >> { > > argh, that's soooooo tasteless. Look, this: > > instruction_pointer(&kgdbts_regs) += offset; > > is just daft. It's not C!
it is C. taste is one thing, but valid C is still valid C.
> It makes no sense to define something which > looks like a function and to then assign values to it. It means that > instruction_pointer() _must_ be implemented as a macro, violating basic > concepts of encapsualtion/layering/hiding/etc. > > Doing > > void instruction_pointer_set(struct pt_regs *regs, some_suitable_type val); > > will save many vomit bags.
and force everyone to implement the same copy & paste set of get/set modifiers ? x86 is the only one where instruction_pointer() isnt a define. -mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |