[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
}Julian Elischer's diff as applied to the 4.5-RELEASE included
}below. With this change ups-3.37-beta4 compiled unchanged.
}
}But note that you still can't change any registers. If
}PT_WRITE_U is added back to the FreeBSD-4.x branch, no change
}is necessary to ups. So
> }> As the culprit behind PT_READ_U's demise, I'm willing to dive in
> }> and help here if needed.
> }Thanks but Julian sent me a patch for 4.5 that seems to work
> }with no changes in ups. Would be nice if PT_READ_U is put
> }back in 4.x.
>
> As a followup to this old thread (and as the poster
Bakul Shah writes:
}> As the culprit behind PT_READ_U's demise, I'm willing to dive in
}> and help here if needed.
}Thanks but Julian sent me a patch for 4.5 that seems to work
}with no changes in ups. Would be nice if PT_READ_U is put
}back in 4.x.
As a followup to this old thread (and as the p
Bakul Shah wrote:
>
> > As the culprit behind PT_READ_U's demise, I'm willing to dive in
> > and help here if needed.
>
> Thanks but Julian sent me a patch for 4.5 that seems to work
> with no changes in ups. Would be nice if PT_READ_U is put
> back in 4.x.
Just a quick comment Peter..
I was
> As the culprit behind PT_READ_U's demise, I'm willing to dive in
> and help here if needed.
Thanks but Julian sent me a patch for 4.5 that seems to work
with no changes in ups. Would be nice if PT_READ_U is put
back in 4.x.
Now that I think about it, ups will need to be fixed up since
the abi
Bakul Shah wrote:
> > Zap 'ptrace(PT_READ_U, ...)' and 'ptrace(PT_WRITE_U, ...)' since they
> > are a really nasty interface that should have been killed long ago
> > when 'ptrace(PT_[SG]ETREGS' etc came along. The entity that they
> > operate on (struct user) will not be around much longer since
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Bakul Shah wrote:
> > Zap 'ptrace(PT_READ_U, ...)' and 'ptrace(PT_WRITE_U, ...)' since they
> > are a really nasty interface that should have been killed long ago
> > when 'ptrace(PT_[SG]ETREGS' etc came along. The entity that they
> > operate on (struct user) will not be
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Bakul Shah wrote:
> > Zap 'ptrace(PT_READ_U, ...)' and 'ptrace(PT_WRITE_U, ...)' since they
> > are a really nasty interface that should have been killed long ago
> > when 'ptrace(PT_[SG]ETREGS' etc came along. The entity that they
> > operate on (struct user) will not be
> Zap 'ptrace(PT_READ_U, ...)' and 'ptrace(PT_WRITE_U, ...)' since they
> are a really nasty interface that should have been killed long ago
> when 'ptrace(PT_[SG]ETREGS' etc came along. The entity that they
> operate on (struct user) will not be around much longer since it
> is part-per-process
On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Bakul Shah wrote:
> Now that ptrace(PT_READ_U, ...) has been excised how does one
> find out what actions are registered for various signals?
> The ups debugger needs this. Please see
> /usr/ports/devel/ups-debug/work/ups-3.35-beta13/ups/ao_pt_uarea.c:632
>
> Thanks!
>
H
Now that ptrace(PT_READ_U, ...) has been excised how does one
find out what actions are registered for various signals?
The ups debugger needs this. Please see
/usr/ports/devel/ups-debug/work/ups-3.35-beta13/ups/ao_pt_uarea.c:632
Thanks!
-- bakul
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
11 matches
Mail list logo
