This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [RFA] i386 segment base support

From: Daniel Jacobowitz <dan at codesourcery dot com>
To: Mark Kettenis <mark dot kettenis at xs4all dot nl>
Cc: teawater at gmail dot com, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, dje at google dot com, msnyder at vmware dot com, eliz at gnu dot org
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 08:54:37 -0400
Subject: Re: [RFA] i386 segment base support
References: <AANLkTilr0p65Ms8OwTVz2qVqAzylUIUiN6VzjRsoZPt6@mail.gmail.com> <201005200819.o4K8JseL023478@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl>

On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 10:19:54AM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> Sorry, but we still need to discuss what programming model you intend
> to support before I will consider looking at diffs.
> 
> Currently, on i386, GDB supports a fully flat 32-bit model, with one
> small exception on platforms that support thread-local-storage.  In
> that model you can assume that all the segment bases are 0 except for
> %gs.  If that's all that people are interested in, I don't think we
> should bother with segment bases for %cs, %ds, %es, %fs and %ss.
> 
> If people want to support fully segmented memory in GDB, then what you
> propose is probably not enough, at least not for 32-bit mode.

This position confuses me.  Isn't "very limited support for segmented
memory" better than "no support for segmented memory"?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [RFA] i386 segment base support
  - From: Mark Kettenis

References:
- [RFA] i386 segment base support
  - From: Hui Zhu
- Re: [RFA] i386 segment base support
  - From: Mark Kettenis

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]