Re: Status update on NPTL
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 05:06:52PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Kyle McMartin<kyle@mcmartin.ca> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 10:17:14AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> >> I've been investigating the crashes, but because of problems with gdb
> >> and strace I've had to take it slow. Kyle, I have your recent strace
> >> patches in my queue to test. Thanks for that.
> >>
> >
> > Which ones? It would be good if some heavy debugger users could test the
> > changes in the tracehook branch with coredumps... I'll try to do a build
> > of strace using PTRACE_{GET,SET}REGS instead of PEEK & POKE for extra
> > testing there as well, but it seems to be working well enough for me.
>
> If I understand correctly you added PTRACE_GETREGS and PTRACE_SETREGS
> with this patch:
> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.parisc/1882
>
> Then you posted a patch to strace to use PTRACE_GETREGS and
> PTRACE_SETREGS with this patch:
> http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/10/752179/-What-staring-at-an-ass-really-looks-like
>
> Is my understanding correct? I would need a kernel patch, an strace
> patch, and then strace would be using PTRACE_GETREGS and
> PTRACE_SETREGS?
>
> How is the debugger involved in this?
>
I haven't figured out how to make gdb use getregs/setregs yet. But if
coredumps continue to work, then the backend regset code is working.
Yeah, those patches should enable it for you. I forgot I posted the
strace ones.
regards, Kyle
Reply to: