On Sat, Nov 09, 2024 at 12:05:28PM +0100, Landry Breuil wrote: > Le Sat, Nov 09, 2024 at 11:50:12AM +0100, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas a écrit : > > On Sat, Nov 09, 2024 at 12:57:56AM -0500, George Koehler wrote: > > > On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 14:03:17 +0100 > > > Jeremie Courreges-Anglas <j...@wxcvbn.org> wrote: > > > > > > > I can't infer from gkoehler's report and yours whether 32 bits powerpc > > > > support is fine. > > > > > > It was fine until I tried switching threads. gdb-13.2 on powerpc gets > > > registers from only the 1st thread, so thread switches have the wrong > > > registers and backtrace. A fix might be to change > > > regcache->ptid ().pid() > > > to > > > get_ptrace_pid (regcache->ptid ()) > > > to match other archs, which I will try later, when I have a few hours > > > to rebuild gdb. > > > > Ah, yes, that's definitely something we want to fix on all platforms. > > But that's not a regression introduced by 13.2, and I suggest you > > handle this in a subsequent commit. > > > > > On powerpc64, gdb-13.2 refusing to run programs or load core dumps was > > > a regression from 9.2. I have edited my ppc64-obsd-*.c and my 13.2 now > > > works about as well as 9.2, so I will mail my patches later. > > > > That's great. As far as I know, besides arm native support, it is the > > last missing piece for this update. I propose I commit this update, > > and then you add your runtime fix for powerpc64 on top. And I'll > > handle arm later, as time permits. > > > > kettenis@ has confirmed that using the latest diff, gdb compiles on arm > > but with no runtime support. Here's the diff again for convenience. > > (~jca/p/gdb-13-jca9.diff) > > > > ok? > > wont comment on the diff itself since gdb is far out of my comfort zone, > but it works on my limited testing on arm64, and i had been using a > previous version of the diff from pascal on amd64 since at least p2k23. > > ok and thanks !
Likewise. I would be extremely happy to see this go in. ok tb (fwiw)
