From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-66227-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 14043 invoked by alias); 25 Aug 2009 18:42:43 -0000
Received: (qmail 14033 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Aug 2009 18:42:42 -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 mtaout6.012.net.il (HELO mtaout6.012.net.il) (84.95.2.16)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:42:32 +0000
Received: from conversion-daemon.i-mtaout6.012.net.il by i-mtaout6.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0KOY00L003VD1100@i-mtaout6.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:42:28 +0300 (IDT)
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.228.144.38]) by i-mtaout6.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0KOY00ISD3YR7TJ0@i-mtaout6.012.net.il>; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:42:28 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:45:00 -0000
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Bug in i386_process_record?
In-reply-to: <daef60380908242202y4102ac49xec519769d7e1f3c@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: <8363cbenvt.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <4A7BA1DE.6010103@vmware.com> <daef60380908202003o56acdb46r731b331be6fee544@mail.gmail.com> <4A90B261.2030602@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>
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/msg00426.txt.bz2

> From: Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com>
> 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.