From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3745 invoked by alias); 30 Apr 2010 06:29:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 3731 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Apr 2010 06:29:35 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SARE_MSGID_LONG45 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-px0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-px0-f169.google.com) (209.85.212.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 06:29:30 +0000 Received: by pxi15 with SMTP id 15so4481348pxi.0 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 23:29:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.209.1 with SMTP id h1mr6079642wfg.269.1272608969121; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 23:29:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.143.4.9 with HTTP; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 23:29:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4BA7B64D.7090403@vmware.com> From: Hui Zhu Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 06:29:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [RFA 3/5] Prec: x86 segment register support: target] To: Doug Evans , Michael Snyder , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , Daniel Jacobowitz , Mark Kettenis , Eli Zaretskii 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: 2010-04/txt/msg00978.txt.bz2 On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 10:14, Hui Zhu wrote: > 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 exam= ple. >> >> >> > >> > 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 suff= icient.] > > Prec just need the base to get the insn memory operate address. =A0Do > 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