On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 5:01 PM, John David Anglin <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Instead of using PT_GR19 and PT_GR21, can't we use PT_SR4 and PT_SR5 >> > to store r2 and r30 for the child. We don't seem to ever actually >> > save sr4 or sr5 in the syscall path and we restore fixed values. >> > This is a hack, but avoids increasing the size of the task structure. >> >> I don't like hacks like this. They are confusing and hard to maintain. > > However, it says in ptrace.h: > > * N.B. gdb/strace care about the size and offsets within this > * structure. If you change things, you may break object compatibility > * for those applications. > > There is one free slot in pt_regs: > > unsigned long pad0; /* available for other uses */ > > Given that this struct leaks to userspace, I don't think we should > mess with it. Maybe. I would certainly test this out before adding new entries. If I provide you with a new glibc with the r19 fix would you be able to test it out? Cheers, Carlos. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-parisc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
