Register refactoring part 1 #1309
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| @@ -817,7 +817,7 @@ size_t Task::get_reg(uint8_t* buf, GDBRegister regname, bool* defined) { | |||
| const Registers& Task::regs() { | |||
| if (!registers_known) { | |||
| LOG(debug) << " (refreshing register cache)"; | |||
| xptrace(PTRACE_GETREGS, nullptr, ®isters); | |||
| xptrace(PTRACE_GETREGS, nullptr, registers.ptrace_registers()); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This commits us to an implementation where Registers uses user_regs_struct for storage. I guess that's OK since we only use this in a couple of places, making it easy to change.
|
Merged. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This cleans up
Registersa bit and starts implementing 64-bit support. I haven't done the non-inline parts ofRegisters.ccyet because most of that requires the GDB interface to be straightened out first. (And I seem to have lost the initial implementation I did when I was just trying to get rr compiling in 64-bit mode...)I'm not really sure about 221ce65; the comment there is opaque to me and looking at the clone syscall assembly, I can't really see what clearing out ebp in that case does. It could be the frame pointer, or we could be overwriting the 6th syscall arg? Not clear to me. Happy to make it poke at the 6th syscall arg instead if that's what's really required.