Subhashish Pradhan, le Thu 20 Mar 2014 22:26:15 +0530, a écrit : > I found kern/syscall_sw.c couple of days ago and was wondering about the > difference between the .h and .c variants; but I waited for your feedback. > The implemented traps matter. But are the others a dummy filler to be > implemented when required?
They are mostly outdated or non-implemented interfaces. At any rate, you don't have to care about them. > I also found that there is a coregrind/m_syswrap/syswrap-darwin.c which has > some mach wrappers. It'd be an interesting reference Most probably indeed. > Can a Darwin VM be used to study that or would it be a waste of time? I'd say just study the source code. > >> 4. Build a working source under an instance of Hurd - generation of > >> makefiles, dependencies, and scripts. (The first deliverable) > > > > That will probably be very early in the coding period actually. Better > > get that working, then implement some PRE/POST, and check that those are > > working. > > Hmm. Yes, that would be a better way - I could write client programs > that use those RPCs Those system calls. Take care of understanding the difference between RPCs and system calls. *All* RPCs go through the mach_msg_trap system call. It means implementing mach_msg_trap correctly in valgrind gives you all RPCs working. > >> Q1 - May I port the newest version of Valgrind or should it pose a problem? > > > > Better start with the latest rather than having to merge with a newer > > version. > > By latest do you mean the trunk version, I presume? Or the current release? I'd say rather the current release. > Sorry for the big, detailed reply. No problem, on the contrary, that's what mails are good for. Samuel
