On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 04:45:01PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 15:57:46 +0100 (CET)
> > From: Mark Kettenis
> >
> > > Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 12:26:28 -0400
> > > From: Dale Rahn
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 11:54:03AM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > > > Date:
> Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 15:57:46 +0100 (CET)
> From: Mark Kettenis
>
> > Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 12:26:28 -0400
> > From: Dale Rahn
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 11:54:03AM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > > Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 13:31:32 +1100
> > > > From: Jonathan Gray
> > > > Cc: tech@
> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 12:26:28 -0400
> From: Dale Rahn
>
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 11:54:03AM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 13:31:32 +1100
> > > From: Jonathan Gray
> > > Cc: tech@openbsd.org
> > > Mail-Followup-To: Mark Kettenis ,
> > > tech@openbsd.org
> > > Cont
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 09:15:09AM -0700, Philip Guenther wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2017, Dale Rahn wrote:
> ...
> > Including the thread pointer would seem to make sense, but there is there
> > a proc vs process issue there (thread vs p
>
> Uh, the registers are _all_ per-thread!
>
>
> Philip
>
On Mon, 20 Mar 2017, Dale Rahn wrote:
...
> Including the thread pointer would seem to make sense, but there is there
> a proc vs process issue there (thread vs p
Uh, the registers are _all_ per-thread!
Philip
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 11:54:03AM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 13:31:32 +1100
> > From: Jonathan Gray
> > Cc: tech@openbsd.org
> > Mail-Followup-To: Mark Kettenis , tech@openbsd.org
> > Content-Disposition: inline
> > X-XS4ALL-DNSBL-Checked: mxdrop306.xs4all.net checked
> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 13:31:32 +1100
> From: Jonathan Gray
> Cc: tech@openbsd.org
> Mail-Followup-To: Mark Kettenis , tech@openbsd.org
> Content-Disposition: inline
> X-XS4ALL-DNSBL-Checked: mxdrop306.xs4all.net checked 210.15.216.215 against
> DNS blacklists
> X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=eoad9c
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 01:35:04AM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> It turns out that pretty much all relevant aarch64 OSes use the same
> layout for transferring registers in their debug interfaces. Except
> for us. That doesn't make sense and would mean I'd have to do
> additional work in my lldb
It turns out that pretty much all relevant aarch64 OSes use the same
layout for transferring registers in their debug interfaces. Except
for us. That doesn't make sense and would mean I'd have to do
additional work in my lldb porting efforts.
Diff below revises "struct reg" for amd64 to be compa
