From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-18257-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 20542 invoked by alias); 29 Aug 2002 21:51:30 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 20531 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2002 21:51:29 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Aug 2002 21:51:29 -0000
Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail)
	by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian))
	id 17kY8c-0006jB-00; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:51:42 -0500
Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 17kXDU-0006XO-00; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:52:40 -0400
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 14:52:00 -0000
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
To: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [rfc] 16 bit real-mode for the i386
Message-ID: <20020829215240.GB24578@nevyn.them.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>,
	gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
References: <3D6E8453.5080306@ges.redhat.com> <20020829213653.GA24048@nevyn.them.org> <1020829214304.ZM24768@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1020829214304.ZM24768@localhost.localdomain>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i
X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg01007.txt.bz2

On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 02:43:04PM -0700, Kevin Buettner wrote:
> On Aug 29,  5:36pm, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> 
> > Now, my i386 knowledge is a bit rusty.  But:
> > 
> > > +static CORE_ADDR
> > > +i386_read_pc (ptid_t ptid)
> > > +{
> > > +  CORE_ADDR pc = read_register_pid (PC_REGNUM, ptid);
> > > +  if (i386_real_mode_p)
> > > +    {
> > > +      CORE_ADDR cs = read_register_pid (CS_REGNUM, ptid);
> > > +      pc = pc + (cs << 4);
> > > +    }
> > > +  return pc;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static void
> > > +i386_write_pc (CORE_ADDR pc, ptid_t ptid)
> > > +{
> > > +  if (i386_real_mode_p)
> > > +    {
> > > +      CORE_ADDR cs = read_register_pid (CS_REGNUM, ptid);
> > > +      pc = pc - (cs << 4);
> > > +    }
> > > +  write_register_pid (PC_REGNUM, pc, ptid);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > 
> > Left shift of _four_?  Surely the PC is more than four bits.
> 
> I think that's right.  My (hazy) recollection from my days of programming
> x86 before there was an 80386 is that an address was formed by shifting
> the segment registers left by four bits and adding some other sixteen bit
> register to it.

That's positively perverse.  Thanks.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer