From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13479 invoked by alias); 1 Jul 2009 16:33:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 13460 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Jul 2009 16:33:10 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:33:00 +0000 Received: (qmail 15570 invoked from network); 1 Jul 2009 16:32:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 1 Jul 2009 16:32:57 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: "Pierre Muller" Subject: Re: [RFC-v2] Add windows Thread Information Block Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:33:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, "'Daniel Jacobowitz'" References: <000901c9f5ef$4ee06f10$eca14d30$@u-strasbg.fr> <200907011643.45759.pedro@codesourcery.com> <002701c9fa66$50823ad0$f186b070$@u-strasbg.fr> In-Reply-To: <002701c9fa66$50823ad0$f186b070$@u-strasbg.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200907011734.11188.pedro@codesourcery.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-07/txt/msg00021.txt.bz2 On Wednesday 01 July 2009 17:09:30, Pierre Muller wrote: > =A0 The link that you give below doesn't say that this is > only valid for i386... Maybe thread local base is also set for ARM wince? > =A0 Could someone test this out? >=20 The equivalent link for CE (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms93917= 2.aspx) mentions the field is present, but it wouldn't be the first time the field wouldn't be present in current CE versions. I'll have to confirm. It ment= ions the same 0x22 offset which makes me suspicious that this was just copy/paste/forgot_updating, which happens a lot! I'd have to check if the pointed to structure has the same format/layout. ARM WinCE implements SEH similarly to x86_64-Windows, not to x86. Plus, I don't think WinCE has sup= port for fibers, while the 32 structure you added includes mention of it. Cert= ainly the %fs comments aren't aplicable to ARM. :-) Where did you find the descriptions/layouts of those structures? --=20 Pedro Alves