[v2,2/2] Propagate NT_RISCV_VECTOR from Linux kernel headers to binutils. The value is identical to pre-existing NT_RISCV_CSR but the note names different (NT_RISCV_CSR is "GDB" and NT_RISCV_VECTOR is "CORE")
Checks
| Context |
Check |
Description |
| linaro-tcwg-bot/tcwg_gdb_check--master-aarch64 |
success
|
Testing passed
|
| linaro-tcwg-bot/tcwg_gdb_build--master-aarch64 |
success
|
Testing passed
|
| linaro-tcwg-bot/tcwg_gdb_build--master-arm |
success
|
Testing passed
|
| linaro-tcwg-bot/tcwg_gdb_check--master-arm |
success
|
Testing passed
|
Commit Message
---
include/elf/common.h | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
Comments
Greg Savin via Gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org> writes:
> ---
> include/elf/common.h | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/elf/common.h b/include/elf/common.h
> index e7eede23a07..d28f5c6ccf5 100644
> --- a/include/elf/common.h
> +++ b/include/elf/common.h
> @@ -715,6 +715,8 @@
> /* note name must be "CORE". */
> #define NT_RISCV_CSR 0x900 /* RISC-V Control and Status Registers */
> /* note name must be "GDB". */
> +#define NT_RISCV_VECTOR 0x900 /* RISC-V Vector Registers */
> + /* note name must be "CORE". */
I'm not a binutils maintainer, but do have an interest from the
RISC-V/GDB side.
Given the comments you made in an earlier mail, I guess we're going to
have to restructure some of the core file support in order to handle
NT_RISCV_CSR and NT_RISCV_VECTOR having the same values. But that
should be doable.
No objections to this patch from me.
Thanks,
Andrew
> #define NT_SIGINFO 0x53494749 /* Fields of siginfo_t. */
> #define NT_FILE 0x46494c45 /* Description of mapped files. */
>
> --
> 2.25.1
On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 05:51:45 PDT (-0700), Andrew Burgess wrote:
> Greg Savin via Gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org> writes:
>
>> ---
>> include/elf/common.h | 2 ++
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/elf/common.h b/include/elf/common.h
>> index e7eede23a07..d28f5c6ccf5 100644
>> --- a/include/elf/common.h
>> +++ b/include/elf/common.h
>> @@ -715,6 +715,8 @@
>> /* note name must be "CORE". */
>> #define NT_RISCV_CSR 0x900 /* RISC-V Control and Status Registers */
>> /* note name must be "GDB". */
>> +#define NT_RISCV_VECTOR 0x900 /* RISC-V Vector Registers */
>> + /* note name must be "CORE". */
>
> I'm not a binutils maintainer, but do have an interest from the
> RISC-V/GDB side.
>
> Given the comments you made in an earlier mail, I guess we're going to
> have to restructure some of the core file support in order to handle
> NT_RISCV_CSR and NT_RISCV_VECTOR having the same values. But that
> should be doable.
>
> No objections to this patch from me.
NT_RISCV_VECTOR isn't in a releasted kernel, so it's not a stable uABI
yet. So there's still time to change it. 0I've got a revert on the
kernel lists, it'd mean we miss 6.5 but we'd just end up in 6.6 which
isn't so bad.
> Thanks,
> Andrew
>
>
>> #define NT_SIGINFO 0x53494749 /* Fields of siginfo_t. */
>> #define NT_FILE 0x46494c45 /* Description of mapped files. */
>>
>> --
>> 2.25.1
On 8/11/23 9:43 AM, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 05:51:45 PDT (-0700), Andrew Burgess wrote:
>> Greg Savin via Gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org> writes:
>>
>>> ---
>>> include/elf/common.h | 2 ++
>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/elf/common.h b/include/elf/common.h
>>> index e7eede23a07..d28f5c6ccf5 100644
>>> --- a/include/elf/common.h
>>> +++ b/include/elf/common.h
>>> @@ -715,6 +715,8 @@
>>> /* note name must be "CORE". */
>>> #define NT_RISCV_CSR 0x900 /* RISC-V Control and Status Registers */
>>> /* note name must be "GDB". */
>>> +#define NT_RISCV_VECTOR 0x900 /* RISC-V Vector Registers */
>>> + /* note name must be "CORE". */
>>
>> I'm not a binutils maintainer, but do have an interest from the
>> RISC-V/GDB side.
>>
>> Given the comments you made in an earlier mail, I guess we're going to
>> have to restructure some of the core file support in order to handle
>> NT_RISCV_CSR and NT_RISCV_VECTOR having the same values. But that
>> should be doable.
>>
>> No objections to this patch from me.
>
> NT_RISCV_VECTOR isn't in a releasted kernel, so it's not a stable uABI
> yet. So there's still time to change it. 0I've got a revert on the
> kernel lists, it'd mean we miss 6.5 but we'd just end up in 6.6 which
> isn't so bad.
While it is possible to handle colliding NT_RISCV_* values, it will probably
be simpler all-around if you are able to make NT_RISCV_VECTOR be 0x901 since
you are going to revert and redo.
On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 17:47:29 PDT (-0700), jhb@FreeBSD.org wrote:
> On 8/11/23 9:43 AM, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 05:51:45 PDT (-0700), Andrew Burgess wrote:
>>> Greg Savin via Gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> include/elf/common.h | 2 ++
>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/elf/common.h b/include/elf/common.h
>>>> index e7eede23a07..d28f5c6ccf5 100644
>>>> --- a/include/elf/common.h
>>>> +++ b/include/elf/common.h
>>>> @@ -715,6 +715,8 @@
>>>> /* note name must be "CORE". */
>>>> #define NT_RISCV_CSR 0x900 /* RISC-V Control and Status Registers */
>>>> /* note name must be "GDB". */
>>>> +#define NT_RISCV_VECTOR 0x900 /* RISC-V Vector Registers */
>>>> + /* note name must be "CORE". */
>>>
>>> I'm not a binutils maintainer, but do have an interest from the
>>> RISC-V/GDB side.
>>>
>>> Given the comments you made in an earlier mail, I guess we're going to
>>> have to restructure some of the core file support in order to handle
>>> NT_RISCV_CSR and NT_RISCV_VECTOR having the same values. But that
>>> should be doable.
>>>
>>> No objections to this patch from me.
>>
>> NT_RISCV_VECTOR isn't in a releasted kernel, so it's not a stable uABI
>> yet. So there's still time to change it. 0I've got a revert on the
>> kernel lists, it'd mean we miss 6.5 but we'd just end up in 6.6 which
>> isn't so bad.
>
> While it is possible to handle colliding NT_RISCV_* values, it will probably
> be simpler all-around if you are able to make NT_RISCV_VECTOR be 0x901 since
> you are going to revert and redo.
Ya, that'd be part of the reason to backport it, there's also one or two
other bugs we found so it's probably just a good sign this wasn't
adequately reviewed. Here's the Linux patch
<https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230810214810.21905-1-palmer@rivosinc.com/>
@@ -715,6 +715,8 @@
/* note name must be "CORE". */
#define NT_RISCV_CSR 0x900 /* RISC-V Control and Status Registers */
/* note name must be "GDB". */
+#define NT_RISCV_VECTOR 0x900 /* RISC-V Vector Registers */
+ /* note name must be "CORE". */
#define NT_SIGINFO 0x53494749 /* Fields of siginfo_t. */
#define NT_FILE 0x46494c45 /* Description of mapped files. */