From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-66171-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 31142 invoked by alias); 23 Aug 2009 18:23:34 -0000
Received: (qmail 31130 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Aug 2009 18:23:33 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,SPF_SOFTFAIL
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il (HELO mtaout22.012.net.il) (80.179.55.172)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 23 Aug 2009 18:23:24 +0000
Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0KOU00G00DHU8N00@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Sun, 23 Aug 2009 21:22:50 +0300 (IDT)
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.228.180.85]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0KOU00E51DQ1U390@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Sun, 23 Aug 2009 21:22:50 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 18:24:00 -0000
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Bug in i386_process_record?
In-reply-to: <4A90C08A.8000107@vmware.com>
To: Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>
Cc: teawater@gmail.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Message-id: <838whafkzq.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <4A7BA1DE.6010103@vmware.com> <daef60380908100150k7693a835x544c3a8be033d144@mail.gmail.com> <4A8097B4.2080709@vmware.com> <daef60380908102319k56787d57w49ea1cf4ed338584@mail.gmail.com> <4A8A2ACD.9000208@vmware.com> <daef60380908180221u15eabc48x650e7c592be11976@mail.gmail.com> <daef60380908202003o56acdb46r731b331be6fee544@mail.gmail.com> <4A90B261.2030602@vmware.com> <daef60380908222030k3251e57eha4a8c38c616b6819@mail.gmail.com> <4A90C08A.8000107@vmware.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/msg00370.txt.bz2

> Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 21:07:38 -0700
> From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>
> CC: gdb-patches ml <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
> 
> > Most of the string ops instruction will use segment register.
> > But I check the some linux program that have string ops insn.  I found
> > that in linux (maybe glibc), the value of the segment register is 0,
> > so it will not affect anything.
> 
> Hmm, ok, but this is i386-tdep.c, not i386-linux-tdep.c...

Exactly.  And what happens on systems where the segment register is
NOT zero?