From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31114 invoked by alias); 20 May 2010 12:54:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 31103 invoked by uid 22791); 20 May 2010 12:54:58 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 20 May 2010 12:54:42 +0000 Received: (qmail 20031 invoked from network); 20 May 2010 12:54:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO caradoc.them.org) (dan@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 20 May 2010 12:54:41 -0000 Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 14:41:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Mark Kettenis Cc: teawater@gmail.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, dje@google.com, msnyder@vmware.com, eliz@gnu.org Subject: Re: [RFA] i386 segment base support Message-ID: <20100520125437.GU8410@caradoc.them.org> References: <201005200819.o4K8JseL023478@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201005200819.o4K8JseL023478@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2010-05/txt/msg00414.txt.bz2 On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 10:19:54AM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > Sorry, but we still need to discuss what programming model you intend > to support before I will consider looking at diffs. > > Currently, on i386, GDB supports a fully flat 32-bit model, with one > small exception on platforms that support thread-local-storage. In > that model you can assume that all the segment bases are 0 except for > %gs. If that's all that people are interested in, I don't think we > should bother with segment bases for %cs, %ds, %es, %fs and %ss. > > If people want to support fully segmented memory in GDB, then what you > propose is probably not enough, at least not for 32-bit mode. This position confuses me. Isn't "very limited support for segmented memory" better than "no support for segmented memory"? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery