lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Mar]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: nios2: is the ptrace ABI correct?


On 03/09/2015 02:02 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> On 2015/3/10 12:54 AM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>> It appears that some of the ways nios2 has organized the
>> ucontext/pt_regs/etc. are remnants of the pre-generic code, some
>> basically because the port was based off m68k.
>>
>> I've re-organized the headers a bit: nios2/include/asm/ucontext.h is
>> deleted, and re-definition of struct sigcontext now allows use of
>> uapi/asm-generic/ucontext.h directly. Note that the reorg, despite
>> effectively renaming some fields, is still binary compatible. I'll
>> probably update the corresponding glibc definitions later.
>>
>> struct pt_regs is now not exported, and all exported register sets are
>> now supposed to follow the 49 register set defined as in GDB now.
>>
>> Tobias, Ley Foon, how do you think this looks?
>
> Sorry, accidentally attached unrelated GCC patch instead, this one's the
> correct one.
>

Looks good. I'm wondering if...

+/* User structures for general purpose registers. */
+struct user_pt_regs {
+ __u32 regs[49];
};

Can we expose the registers explicitly here? Like this:

struct user_pt_regs {
__u32 r0;
__u32 r1;
...
__u32 sp;
__u32 gp;
__u32 estatus;
};

It looks self-documenting and thus easier to use.
--
Ezequiel Garcia, VanguardiaSur
www.vanguardiasur.com.ar


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-03-09 18:21    [W:0.516 / U:0.100 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site