From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753337AbbCIRIC (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Mar 2015 13:08:02 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f170.google.com ([209.85.212.170]:39485 "EHLO mail-wi0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753019AbbCIRH6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Mar 2015 13:07:58 -0400 Message-ID: <54FDD2D8.8090509@vanguardiasur.com.ar> Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 14:05:28 -0300 From: Ezequiel Garcia Organization: VanguardiaSur User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chung-Lin Tang , Chung-Lin Tang , Arnd Bergmann , Tobias Klauser , Ley Foon Tan CC: Walter Goossens , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, "nios2-dev@lists.rocketboards.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: nios2: is the ptrace ABI correct? References: <10088870.tldQegtTla@wuerfel> <54EDB2FC.4050901@vanguardiasur.com.ar> <10841724.NbdcAaCe1a@wuerfel> <54F03184.7080600@codesourcery.com> <54F052B1.4070300@vanguardiasur.com.ar> <54FDD041.3080500@codesourcery.com> <54FDD219.1060707@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <54FDD219.1060707@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=big5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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