From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16448 invoked by alias); 30 Apr 2010 09:36:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 16428 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Apr 2010 09:36:35 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:36:25 +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 o3U9Xamh010756; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:33:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id o3U9XXat025217; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:33:33 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:36:00 -0000 Message-Id: <201004300933.o3U9XXat025217@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: teawater@gmail.com CC: dje@google.com, msnyder@vmware.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, dan@codesourcery.com, mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, eliz@gnu.org In-reply-to: (message from Hui Zhu on Fri, 30 Apr 2010 14:29:09 +0800) Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [RFA 3/5] Prec: x86 segment register support: target] References: <4BA7B64D.7090403@vmware.com> 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: 2010-04/txt/msg00982.txt.bz2 > From: Hui Zhu > Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 14:29:09 +0800 > > On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 10:14, Hui Zhu wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 02:44, Doug Evans wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Hui Zhu wrote: > >> > On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 02:47, Doug Evans wrote: > >> >> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Michael Snyder wrote: > >> >>> I'd just like to point out that while all this sounds great, > >> >>> it shouldn't be a prerequisite to the original task of just > >> >>> getting prec to record the segments and offsets correctly. > >> >>> > >> >>> Maybe we should split these two tasks, so that Teawater can > >> >>> go ahead and accomplish his. > >> >> > >> >> To the extent that they can be split, IWBN alright. > >> >> > >> >> I wonder if the interface is sufficient though (setting aside where to > >> >> put it and how it will look). > >> >> Any particular o/s might not provide sufficient hooks of course. > >> >> linux's modify_ldt, AIUI, let's one change more than just foo_base. > >> >> NativeClient http://code.google.com/p/nativeclient/ uses it, for example. > >> >> > >> > > >> > Thanks Doug. > >> > > >> > I suggest we support segment base step by step. > >> > When the OS that support it will show the xxx_base to user, the > >> > unsupport OS will show nothing. > >> > > >> > What do you think about it? > >> > >> Is supporting segment base sufficient? > >> Or do you also need to support, e.g., segment limit and flags too? > >> There may be more, but they're the two that come to mind. > >> [That's what I was referring to regarding whether the interface was sufficient.] > > > > Prec just need the base to get the insn memory operate address.  Do > > you think we need other message of segment? > > > > If need, do we need divide all message like eflags? > > > > Thanks, > > Hui > > > > Hi all, > > X86 looks stab now. Shall we wake up this patch? Thanks for the reminder. Let me first ask a question. What do people expect out of this? Do they really want support for fully segmented code, or is it just for small deviations like accessing per-thread storage through %fs/%gs?