From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-66196-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 27317 invoked by alias); 24 Aug 2009 19:20:11 -0000
Received: (qmail 27307 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Aug 2009 19:20:10 -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 mtaout7.012.net.il (HELO mtaout7.012.net.il) (84.95.2.19)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:20:03 +0000
Received: from conversion-daemon.i-mtaout7.012.net.il by i-mtaout7.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0KOW00900AXWAG00@i-mtaout7.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 22:19:56 +0300 (IDT)
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.228.180.85]) by i-mtaout7.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0KOW00FQMB17Z220@i-mtaout7.012.net.il>; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 22:19:56 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:31:00 -0000
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Bug in i386_process_record?
In-reply-to: <daef60380908231642h1d85f7b5r70a5856647335f4c@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: <83d46ldnoj.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <4A7BA1DE.6010103@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> <daef60380908222129g483ed968sce36e561a0febf2f@mail.gmail.com> <837hwufkxr.fsf@gnu.org> <daef60380908231642h1d85f7b5r70a5856647335f4c@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/msg00395.txt.bz2

> From: Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 07:42:41 +0800
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> 
> For the gdb, the value of segment reg is not the really value.
> cs             0x73	115
> ss             0x7b	123
> ds             0x7b	123
> es             0x7b	123
> fs             0x0	0
> gs             0x33	51
> I have tried some insn that use segment reg such as string ops insn.
> I found that the value of this segment reg cannot affect anything.

Did you try setjmp and longjmp?