This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [Fwd: Re: [RFA 3/5] Prec: x86 segment register support: target]
- From: Hui Zhu <teawater at gmail dot com>
- To: Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>, Michael Snyder <msnyder at vmware dot com>, "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>, Daniel Jacobowitz <dan at codesourcery dot com>, Mark Kettenis <mark dot kettenis at xs4all dot nl>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 14:29:09 +0800
- Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [RFA 3/5] Prec: x86 segment register support: target]
- References: <4BA7B64D.7090403@vmware.com> <e394668d1003221147g5d90365cjc9fe31f79eaf02c9@mail.gmail.com> <daef60381003221959n290b0f1ayed13051204b2ae1a@mail.gmail.com> <e394668d1003241144p56be52d5i70ef700e7f60102f@mail.gmail.com> <daef60381003241914s1f4cd8ffre2d167a24f259abc@mail.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