From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24263 invoked by alias); 25 Mar 2010 02:14:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 24253 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Mar 2010 02:14:47 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-pv0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-pv0-f169.google.com) (74.125.83.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 02:14:43 +0000 Received: by pvg2 with SMTP id 2so4633572pvg.0 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 19:14:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.121.1 with SMTP id t1mr2902220wfc.100.1269483281731; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 19:14:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4BA7B64D.7090403@vmware.com> From: Hui Zhu Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 02:14:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [RFA 3/5] Prec: x86 segment register support: target] To: Doug Evans Cc: Michael Snyder , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , Daniel Jacobowitz , Mark Kettenis , Eli Zaretskii Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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: 2010-03/txt/msg00839.txt.bz2 On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 02:44, Doug Evans wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Hui Zhu wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 02:47, Doug Evans wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Michael Snyder wrote: > >>> I'd just like to point out that while all this sounds great, > >>> it shouldn't be a prerequisite to the original task of just > >>> getting prec to record the segments and offsets correctly. > >>> > >>> Maybe we should split these two tasks, so that Teawater can > >>> go ahead and accomplish his. > >> > >> To the extent that they can be split, IWBN alright. > >> > >> I wonder if the interface is sufficient though (setting aside where to > >> put it and how it will look). > >> Any particular o/s might not provide sufficient hooks of course. > >> linux's modify_ldt, AIUI, let's one change more than just foo_base. > >> NativeClient http://code.google.com/p/nativeclient/ uses it, for example. > >> > > > > Thanks Doug. > > > > I suggest we support segment base step by step. > > When the OS that support it will show the xxx_base to user, the > > unsupport OS will show nothing. > > > > What do you think about it? > > Is supporting segment base sufficient? > Or do you also need to support, e.g., segment limit and flags too? > There may be more, but they're the two that come to mind. > [That's what I was referring to regarding whether the interface was sufficient.] Prec just need the base to get the insn memory operate address. Do you think we need other message of segment? If need, do we need divide all message like eflags? Thanks, Hui