From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25380 invoked by alias); 22 Mar 2010 14:35:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 25372 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Mar 2010 14:35:28 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (83.163.83.176) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:35:24 +0000 Received: from glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o2MEXvNw014457; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:33:57 +0100 (CET) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id o2MEXt0J031478; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:33:55 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:35:00 -0000 Message-Id: <201003221433.o2MEXt0J031478@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: teawater@gmail.com CC: msnyder@vmware.com, dan@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, hjl.tools@gmail.com In-reply-to: (message from Hui Zhu on Mon, 22 Mar 2010 22:02:52 +0800) Subject: Re: [RFA 3/5] Prec: x86 segment register support: target References: <4B9FCA21.9020904@vmware.com> <20100316200424.GA29097@caradoc.them.org> 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: 2010-03/txt/msg00753.txt.bz2 > From: Hui Zhu > Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 22:02:52 +0800 > > Thanks Michael and Daniel. > > I make a patch to add base of segments registers to x86-32: > (gdb) info reg > eax 0xffffd514 -10988 > ecx 0x1eda96c5 517641925 > edx 0x1 1 > ebx 0xf7fb1ff4 -134537228 > esp 0xffffd488 0xffffd488 > ebp 0xffffd488 0xffffd488 > esi 0x8048510 134513936 > edi 0x80483d0 134513616 > eip 0x8048487 0x8048487 > eflags 0x246 [ PF ZF IF ] > cs 0x23 35 > ss 0x2b 43 > ds 0x2b 43 > es 0x2b 43 > fs 0x0 0 > gs 0x63 99 > cs_base 0x0 0 > ss_base 0x0 0 > ds_base 0x0 0 > es_base 0x0 0 > fs_base 0x0 0 > gs_base 0xf7e528d0 -135976752 > > I try it in x86-32 pc and 32bit code in x86-64. It works OK. Sorry, but I don't think adding these xx_base registers is a good idea. They are not acrhitected registers so they don't beling in the list of registers.