On 02/09/2012 04:17 PM, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 12:48:26PM -0800, Dmitry Mikulin wrote:
The semantic of PL_FLAG_EXEC up until now is very simple: it indicates
that current stop occured during the first return to usermode after
successful exec. The proposed patch breaks the semantic, because now
some stops which satisfy the stated condition are no longer marked with
the flag.
That said, I am lost. You stated that you still need some stops at
exec even when not PT_FOLLOW_EXEC is requested. Why usermode cannot
remember whether the PT_FOLLOW_EXEC was set for the process, and ignore
PL_FLAG_EXEC if not requested ?
I was trying to avoid making ugly changes in gdb if it was possible not to
make ugly changes in the kernel. I changed gdb to work without
PT_FOLLOW_EXEC.
So, does the patch below helps you, or did I missed something again ?
It works, but I managed to make gdb work without it. So, PT_FOLLOW_EXEC is not
needed now.
Sorry for the confusion.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
