From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8170 invoked by alias); 24 Mar 2010 18:44:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 8162 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Mar 2010 18:44:21 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.44.51) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:44:17 +0000 Received: from hpaq2.eem.corp.google.com (hpaq2.eem.corp.google.com [10.3.21.2]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o2OIiD0x004247 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:44:14 -0700 Received: from gwaa20 (gwaa20.prod.google.com [10.200.27.20]) by hpaq2.eem.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o2OIiCgR028682 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 19:44:12 +0100 Received: by gwaa20 with SMTP id a20so1124970gwa.6 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:44:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.151.102.10 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:44:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4BA7B64D.7090403@vmware.com> Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:44:00 -0000 Received: by 10.150.210.2 with SMTP id i2mr166029ybg.168.1269456251960; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:44:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [RFA 3/5] Prec: x86 segment register support: target] From: Doug Evans To: Hui Zhu Cc: Michael Snyder , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-System-Of-Record: true 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/msg00812.txt.bz2 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.]