Re: nios2: is the ptrace ABI correct?

[Ley Foon Tan]

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 1:05 AM, Ezequiel Garcia
<ezequiel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> 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.

Hi Chung-Lin,

Your patch look good to me.
Do you have any problem to change the struct user_pt_regs based on
Ezequiel's suggestion?
If not, can you please resend the new patch.
Thanks.


Regards
Ley Foon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/