svn commit: r224683 - head/lib/libthread_db

[Bjoern A. Zeeb]

On Aug 7, 2011, at 11:52 AM, Marius Strobl wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 06, 2011 at 07:35:49PM -0700, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
>> 
>> On Aug 6, 2011, at 4:24 PM, Marius Strobl wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sun, Aug 07, 2011 at 01:06:48AM +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>>>> on 07/08/2011 00:41 Garrett Cooper said the following:
>>>>> It's not just i386. It's other architectures like arm, mips, and pc98
>>>>> according to the tinderbox reports (this list is potentially
>>>>> incomplete).
>>>> 
>>>> Yeah, confusingly enough thr_pread_long() is declared to take uint64_t* as its
>>>> third argument, so this commit breaks all platforms where uint64_t is not
>>>> derived from (unsigned) long.
>>>> Just in case, thr_pread_int() takes uint32_t* as well.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Yes, the type of val is wrong. I'm currently running a fix through a
>>> universe build
>> 
>> Ah, euh, ok, I forgot about this particular quirk:
>> 
>> uint64_t is deliberate, because it's the width of long on 64-bit
>> architectures and thread_db is to be used as a support library
>> for a cross-tool (i.e. a 32-bit debugger for a 64-bit target).
>> 
>> That's why thr_pread_long() takes a pointer to uint64_t and
>> thr_pread_int() takes a pointer to uint32_t...
>> 
>> Sorry for missing this in the review.
> 
> Okay, but then I don't know how to properly fix this given that
> thr_p{read,write}_long() still seem to do the wrong thing as they
> supply sizeof(long) rather than the size of a long on the target
> to thr_p{read,write}() as the size of the value in the target
> address space. If I change the callers of thr_pread_long() to
> supply a uint64_t this will compile but it still does the wrong
> thing in the cross-debugging case and I can't even think of how
> to fix that without additional information about the target, i.e.
> just using sizeof(uint64_t) obviously also is the wrong thing.
> Both thr_p{read,write}_ptr() are similarly confusing as they take
> a psaddr_t which is defined as uint64_t but use sizeof(void *)
> which again is specific to the host rather tan the target.
> Do you have a suggestion how to fix these?

Given this, can you please back it out, find a proper solution together, test it and re-add that then?

Thanks

-- 
Bjoern A. Zeeb                                 You have to have visions!
         Stop bit received. Insert coin for new address family.