From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6787 invoked by alias); 29 Aug 2002 22:30:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 6774 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2002 22:30:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO walton.kettenis.dyndns.org) (62.163.169.250) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Aug 2002 22:30:05 -0000 Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org [192.168.0.2]) by walton.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g7TMTuJt000360; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 00:29:56 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org) Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g7TMTuq8000398; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 00:29:56 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g7TMTq3s000395; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 00:29:52 +0200 (CEST) To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfc] 16 bit real-mode for the i386 References: <3D6E8453.5080306@ges.redhat.com> From: Mark Kettenis Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:36:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: Andrew Cagney's message of "Thu, 29 Aug 2002 16:30:11 -0400" Message-ID: <86n0r5pacf.fsf@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg01012.txt.bz2 Andrew Cagney writes: > Hello, > > The attached modifies i386-tdep.c so that there is a ``set i386 > real-mode'' command (doco to go). > > When real-mode is enabled, GDB computes the ``20 bit'' ``stop address'' > (aka PC but not to be confused with $pc ... :-) from both the $cs and > $pc registers. That way, core GDB sees a cannonical PC address that > (regardless of $cs) will match a ``20 bit'' breakpoint address. > > Thoughts? Looks OK to me. Just two nits: could you consider s/CS_REGNUM/I386_CS_REGNUM/? And I believe the GNU coding standards say that one shouldn't introduce unecessary whitespace. Therefore I have some problems with the extra newlines you're introducing. Are you planning to add this before we cut the branch? I'm a little uncomfortable with adding any new features just before doing so. Mark