From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17387 invoked by alias); 20 May 2010 08:40:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 17359 invoked by uid 22791); 20 May 2010 08:40:29 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-pw0-f41.google.com (HELO mail-pw0-f41.google.com) (209.85.160.41) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 20 May 2010 08:40:19 +0000 Received: by pwi7 with SMTP id 7so8428598pwi.0 for ; Thu, 20 May 2010 01:40:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.119.33 with SMTP id r33mr7161859wfc.213.1274344818288; Thu, 20 May 2010 01:40:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.143.45.13 with HTTP; Thu, 20 May 2010 01:39:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201005200819.o4K8JseL023478@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> References: <201005200819.o4K8JseL023478@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Hui Zhu Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 12:54:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFA] i386 segment base support To: Mark Kettenis Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, dje@google.com, msnyder@vmware.com, dan@codesourcery.com, eliz@gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: 2010-05/txt/msg00413.txt.bz2 On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 16:19, Mark Kettenis wrot= e: >> From: Hui Zhu >> Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 15:34:17 +0800 >> >> Hi guys, >> >> I update the old patch that I post to support segment base value. > > Sorry, but we still need to discuss what programming model you intend > to support before I will consider looking at diffs. > > Currently, on i386, GDB supports a fully flat 32-bit model, with one > small exception on platforms that support thread-local-storage. =A0In > that model you can assume that all the segment bases are 0 except for > %gs. =A0If that's all that people are interested in, I don't think we > should bother with segment bases for %cs, %ds, %es, %fs and %ss. > > If people want to support fully segmented memory in GDB, then what you > propose is probably not enough, at least not for 32-bit mode. > I have a very, very need the value of segment base register. Do you have some good idea to put this value from target part (i386-linux-nat) to gdbarch part (prec)? Thanks, Hui