On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 at 19:21, Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 3/13/23 04:44, Luis Machado wrote: > >> Luis: I think that rather than doing (2) with a QEMU namespace, > >> we should define a gdb namespace for this. That makes it clear > >> that this is still a gdb-upstream-sanctioned way of exposing > >> the pauth registers. > > > > That should be fine as well, and would work to side-step the gdb 12 bug so > > it doesn't crash. > > > > We could name the feature "org.gnu.gdb.aarch64.pauth_v2" or somesuch, and > > slowly stop > > using the original > > "org.gnu.gdb.aarch64.pauth" feature. I can document the requirements for a > > compliant > > pauth_v2. > > What if we leave the original two registers, pauth_[cd]mask, in > org.gnu.gdb.aarch64.pauth > and move the new *_high registers into a different feature? That would > maximize the set > of gdb version for which the original user-only support is functional.
If that avoids the gdb crash, sure. But I had the impression from Luis' description of it that that would not help (i.e. that it was the not-used-by-gdb registers in other XML sections like sysregs that resulted in it getting confused about the register number for its internal pauth-related register). thanks -- PMM
