From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2523 invoked by alias); 27 Aug 2009 00:28:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 2515 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Aug 2009 00:28:09 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com) (65.115.85.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 27 Aug 2009 00:28:01 +0000 Received: from mailhost4.vmware.com (mailhost4.vmware.com [10.16.67.124]) by smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6482614101; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:28:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.94.141] (msnyder-server.eng.vmware.com [10.20.94.141]) by mailhost4.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AAB4C9A23; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:28:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4A95D342.6070304@vmware.com> Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 00:32:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20080411) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Snyder CC: Hui Zhu , Eli Zaretskii , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: Bug in i386_process_record? References: <4A7BA1DE.6010103@vmware.com> <4A90C08A.8000107@vmware.com> <837hwufkxr.fsf@gnu.org> <83eir1dnqw.fsf@gnu.org> <8363cbenvt.fsf@gnu.org> <4A95C927.8020607@vmware.com> In-Reply-To: <4A95C927.8020607@vmware.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/msg00465.txt.bz2 Michael Snyder wrote: > Hui Zhu wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 02:42, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >>>> From: Hui Zhu >>>> Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:02:44 +0800 >>>> Cc: msnyder@vmware.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org >>>> >>>> It seems that the segment (It is not the section) registers in x86 >>>> protect mode is just help MMU to get the physical address. It's >>>> transparent for the user level program. >>> It's transparent if $es and $ds have the same value (which they >>> usually do, AFAIK). >>> >>>> What do you think about remove this warning from this patch? >>> I would indeed do that, if we find that $es and $ds have the same >>> values. Assuming that someone who knows Linux better than I do >>> confirms that these two registers hold the same selector when a normal >>> application is running in user mode. >>> >> Thanks for remind me. We cannot get the value of each segment >> register, but we can get each segment register point to. So if the >> value of segment registers, it's means that the value of them is same. >> >> I add some code about it: >> regcache_raw_read_unsigned (ir.regcache, >> ir.regmap[X86_RECORD_ES_REGNUM], >> &es); >> regcache_raw_read_unsigned (ir.regcache, >> ir.regmap[X86_RECORD_DS_REGNUM], >> &ds); >> if (ir.aflag && (es != ds)) >> { >> >> After that, we will not get the warning because the es is same with ds >> in user level. >> >> What do you think about it? > > I think it is the best version I have seen so far. > And it seems to follow the conclusions of the discussion. > And I've tested it, and it seems to work. > > I would say wait until end-of-business Friday, and > if there are no more comments, check it in! Hui, Do you think you could add some new tests to i386-reverse.exp, to verify the string instructions? Thanks, Michael