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: Bug in i386_process_record?


On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 11:19, Eli Zaretskii<eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>> From: Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com>
>> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 10:58:39 +0800
>> Cc: msnyder@vmware.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>>
>> I add some code about it:
>> ? ? ? ? ? regcache_raw_read_unsigned (ir.regcache,
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ir.regmap[X86_RECORD_ES_REGNUM],
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? &es);
>> ? ? ? ? ? regcache_raw_read_unsigned (ir.regcache,
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ir.regmap[X86_RECORD_DS_REGNUM],
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? &ds);
>> ? ? ? ? ? if (ir.aflag && (es != ds))
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? {
>>
>> After that, we will not get the warning because the es is same with ds
>> in user level.
>>
>> What do you think about it?
>
> Sounds good to me.
>

Do you think it's OK to check in?

Hui


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