On Wed, 2015-02-25 at 13:39 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> In RFC style, rather than relying on the implicit assumptions of a
> particular C ABI.
>
> I have also confirmed, using the Python gdb extension technique in
> [0], that the struct offsets (in a Linux binary at least) are the same
> as descr
On 02/03/15 17:08, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-02-25 at 13:57 +, David Vrabel wrote:
>> On 25/02/15 13:39, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>>
>>> + * Guest transmit
>>> + * ==
>>> + *
>>> + * Ring slot size is 12 octets, however not all request/response
>>> + * structs use the full size
On Wed, 2015-02-25 at 13:57 +, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 25/02/15 13:39, Ian Campbell wrote:
> >
> > + * Guest transmit
> > + * ==
> > + *
> > + * Ring slot size is 12 octets, however not all request/response
> > + * structs use the full size.
> > + *
> > + * tx request data (netif_
On 25/02/15 13:39, Ian Campbell wrote:
>
> + * Guest transmit
> + * ==
> + *
> + * Ring slot size is 12 octets, however not all request/response
> + * structs use the full size.
> + *
> + * tx request data (netif_tx_request_t)
> + *
> + *
> + *0
In RFC style, rather than relying on the implicit assumptions of a
particular C ABI.
I have also confirmed, using the Python gdb extension technique in
[0], that the struct offsets (in a Linux binary at least) are the same
as described here.
I took the opportunity to also confirm that x86_32, x86
