The new code in strace 4.5.14-1 fixes most of the ipc trace problems.
Thank you for those changes.

  But strace still has trouble with semtimedop.  The sense of the
indirect_ipccall test in sys_semtimedop is backwards.  And the values
for semtimedop in linux/hppa/syscallent.h are initialized incorrectly.
The following changes correct the values reported when running strace
on the ipc_test.c program.


diff -ur strace-4.5.14/ipc.c strace-4.5.14.1/ipc.c
--- strace-4.5.14/ipc.c 2005-12-02 04:34:09.000000000 +0000
+++ strace-4.5.14.1/ipc.c       2006-04-24 23:01:15.790000000 +0000
@@ -293,7 +293,7 @@
 {
        if (entering(tcp)) {
                tprintf("%lu", tcp->u_arg[0]);
-               if (!indirect_ipccall(tcp)) {
+               if (indirect_ipccall(tcp)) {
                        tprintf(", %#lx", tcp->u_arg[3]);
                        tprintf(", %lu, ", tcp->u_arg[1]);
                        printtv(tcp, tcp->u_arg[5]);
diff -ur strace-4.5.14/linux/hppa/syscallent.h 
strace-4.5.14.1/linux/hppa/syscallent.h
--- strace-4.5.14/linux/hppa/syscallent.h       2006-01-12 22:34:50.000000000 
+0000
+++ strace-4.5.14.1/linux/hppa/syscallent.h     2006-04-24 23:19:56.320000000 
+0000
@@ -233,7 +233,7 @@
        { 4,    TD,     sys_epoll_ctl,          "epoll_ctl"             }, /* 
225 */
        { 4,    TD,     sys_epoll_wait,         "epoll_wait"            }, /* 
226 */
        { 5,    0,      printargs,              "remap_file_pages"      }, /* 
227 */
-       { 5,    0,      printargs,              "semtimedop"            }, /* 
228 */
+       { 5,    TI,     sys_semtimedop,         "semtimedop"            }, /* 
228 */
        { 5,    0,      printargs,              "mq_open"               }, /* 
229 */
        { 5,    0,      printargs,              "mq_unlink"             }, /* 
230 */
        { 5,    0,      printargs,              "mq_timedsend"          }, /* 
231 */

-- 
Mike Stroyan, [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to