Re: [Fwd: Re: [RFA 3/5] Prec: x86 segment register support: target]

[Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 10:14, Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 02:44, Doug Evans <dje@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 02:47, Doug Evans <dje@google.com> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com> 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
>

Hi all,

X86 looks stab now.  Shall we wake up this patch?

Thanks,
Hui