3 Dec
2013
3 Dec
'13
11:21 a.m.
On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 10:16:37AM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
I think that there's a slight problem with this on BE systems.
[...]
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 06:32:26AM +0000, vijay.kilari@gmail.com wrote:
{ "pstate", 4, offsetof(struct pt_regs, pstate)},As pt_regs::pstate is a u64, we're only describing half of the field here (to match GDB's expectations). While we happen to get the half we're interested in on an LE system, on a BE system this will point at the zeroed half.
Yup, I think you're right. It's almost as if this hasn't been tested on a BE system.
Given that a large proportion of this CC list *do* actually care about BE, I'd like to see a tested-by from one of them before this gets merged. I'm pretty sure GDB has a testsuite which might be of some use.
Will