From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12154 invoked by alias); 30 Aug 2002 19:44:53 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 12147 invoked from network); 30 Aug 2002 19:44:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (66.30.197.194) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 30 Aug 2002 19:44:53 -0000 Received: from ges.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BF813C67; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 15:44:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D6FCB35.8070205@ges.redhat.com> Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 12:47:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020824 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Kettenis Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfc] 16 bit real-mode for the i386 References: <3D6E8453.5080306@ges.redhat.com> <86n0r5pacf.fsf@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg01045.txt.bz2 > Andrew Cagney writes: > > >> Hello, >> >> The attached modifies i386-tdep.c so that there is a ``set i386 >> real-mode'' command (doco to go). >> >> When real-mode is enabled, GDB computes the ``20 bit'' ``stop address'' >> (aka PC but not to be confused with $pc ... :-) from both the $cs and >> $pc registers. That way, core GDB sees a cannonical PC address that >> (regardless of $cs) will match a ``20 bit'' breakpoint address. >> >> Thoughts? > > > Looks OK to me. Just two nits: could you consider > s/CS_REGNUM/I386_CS_REGNUM/? And I believe the GNU coding standards > say that one shouldn't introduce unecessary whitespace. Therefore I > have some problems with the extra newlines you're introducing. I'll change the macro^D^Denum. Many of the new lines are consistent with whats around (but I'll prune those that look excessive little). > Are you planning to add this before we cut the branch? I'm a little > uncomfortable with adding any new features just before doing so. I'm not expecting to really follow this up until after the branch is cut. (And I still need to think up a testcase :-) Andrew