From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20981 invoked by alias); 26 Aug 2009 17:10:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 20969 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Aug 2009 17:10:54 -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; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:10:44 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.i-mtaout6.012.net.il by i-mtaout6.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0KOZ00500U8GXK00@i-mtaout6.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:10:12 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.228.144.38]) by i-mtaout6.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0KOZ0013IUCZHP70@i-mtaout6.012.net.il>; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:10:11 +0300 (IDT) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:37:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: Bug in i386_process_record? In-reply-to: To: Hui Zhu Cc: msnyder@vmware.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83ws4qcxhl.fsf@gnu.org> References: <4A7BA1DE.6010103@vmware.com> <837hwufkxr.fsf@gnu.org> <83eir1dnqw.fsf@gnu.org> <8363cbenvt.fsf@gnu.org> <831vmzdzym.fsf@gnu.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-08/txt/msg00452.txt.bz2 > From: Hui Zhu > Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 11:27:06 +0800 > Cc: msnyder@vmware.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > >> 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. > > > > Do you think it's OK to check in? I was talking about your suggestion not to display a warning.