From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-66195-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 26826 invoked by alias); 24 Aug 2009 19:18:46 -0000
Received: (qmail 26814 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Aug 2009 19:18:45 -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; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:18:33 +0000
Received: from conversion-daemon.i_mtaout2.012.net.il by i_mtaout2.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) id <0KOW00K00AVTHK00@i_mtaout2.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 22:18:30 +0300 (IDT)
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.228.180.85]) by i_mtaout2.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) with ESMTPA id <0KOW005R4AYTW020@i_mtaout2.012.net.il>; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 22:18:30 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:20:00 -0000
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Bug in i386_process_record?
In-reply-to: <daef60380908231700i47c2b1e7kae31369237b419b4@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: <83eir1dnqw.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <4A7BA1DE.6010103@vmware.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> <daef60380908231700i47c2b1e7kae31369237b419b4@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/msg00394.txt.bz2

> From: Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 08:00:29 +0800
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> 
> #rep stos %eax,%es:(%edi)
> $edi + 0 = 0x8049660 blob1
> $edi + $es != 0x8049660 blob1

Well, of course! %es:(%edi) does _not_ mean $es+$edi, it means that
$edi is used to address the section whose segment descriptor's index
(a.k.a. selector) is in $es.  That is, in your case, 0x7b is the
selector that identifies the segment descriptor of the section where
blob1[] is stored (.bss, if my rusty memory doesn't deceive me).

Am I missing something?  If not, what was this example supposed to
prove, exactly?