From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-66237-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 2583 invoked by alias); 26 Aug 2009 03:19:23 -0000
Received: (qmail 2573 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Aug 2009 03:19:23 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.6 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_SOFTFAIL
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mtaout2.012.net.il (HELO mtaout2.012.net.il) (84.95.2.4)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 03:19:15 +0000
Received: from conversion-daemon.i_mtaout2.012.net.il by i_mtaout2.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) id <0KOY00H00RFVGS00@i_mtaout2.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 06:19:11 +0300 (IDT)
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.228.144.38]) by i_mtaout2.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) with ESMTPA id <0KOY005P9RVZL650@i_mtaout2.012.net.il>; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 06:19:11 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 03:27:00 -0000
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Bug in i386_process_record?
In-reply-to: <daef60380908251958u31f379e2oe5839c3a9e826428@mail.gmail.com>
To: Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com>
Cc: msnyder@vmware.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Message-id: <831vmzdzym.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <4A7BA1DE.6010103@vmware.com> <daef60380908222030k3251e57eha4a8c38c616b6819@mail.gmail.com> <4A90C08A.8000107@vmware.com> <daef60380908222129g483ed968sce36e561a0febf2f@mail.gmail.com> <837hwufkxr.fsf@gnu.org> <daef60380908231642h1d85f7b5r70a5856647335f4c@mail.gmail.com> <daef60380908231700i47c2b1e7kae31369237b419b4@mail.gmail.com> <83eir1dnqw.fsf@gnu.org> <daef60380908242202y4102ac49xec519769d7e1f3c@mail.gmail.com> <8363cbenvt.fsf@gnu.org> <daef60380908251958u31f379e2oe5839c3a9e826428@mail.gmail.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-08/txt/msg00436.txt.bz2

> From: Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 10:58:39 +0800
> Cc: msnyder@vmware.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> 
> 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?

Sounds good to me.