From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30304 invoked by alias); 23 Aug 2009 23:53:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 30295 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Aug 2009 23:53:30 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 23 Aug 2009 23:53:24 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDE2B10660; Sun, 23 Aug 2009 23:53:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D7751059F; Sun, 23 Aug 2009 23:53:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MfMsC-0003zV-IU; Sun, 23 Aug 2009 19:53:20 -0400 Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 23:56:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Hui Zhu Cc: Eli Zaretskii , msnyder@vmware.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Bug in i386_process_record? Message-ID: <20090823235320.GA14997@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Hui Zhu , Eli Zaretskii , msnyder@vmware.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <4A8A2ACD.9000208@vmware.com> <4A90B261.2030602@vmware.com> <4A90C08A.8000107@vmware.com> <837hwufkxr.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2009-08/txt/msg00376.txt.bz2 On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 07:42:41AM +0800, Hui Zhu wrote: > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 02:24, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > > > From: Hui Zhu > > > Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 12:29:33 +0800 > > > Cc: gdb-patches ml > > > > > > read_register (I386_ES_REGNUM) > > > This value is not the value of ES.  This is number of TLB. > > > > On what OS? If I remember correctly, the %es that GDB sees is the selector rather than the base address. I think any halfway recent Linux kernel exposes both values, but GDB doesn't display the bases - this probably bears fixing! -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery