From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ghx3t-0004Ep-Qn for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 08 Nov 2006 18:42:29 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ghx3s-0004CO-Ah for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 08 Nov 2006 18:42:29 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ghx3s-0004CD-5a for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 08 Nov 2006 18:42:28 -0500 Received: from [66.93.172.17] (helo=nevyn.them.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.52) id 1Ghx3r-0005gk-Pt for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 08 Nov 2006 18:42:28 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1Ghx3q-0003Vb-7k for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 08 Nov 2006 18:42:26 -0500 Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 18:42:26 -0500 From: Daniel Jacobowitz Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: Debugging with paging enabled Message-ID: <20061108234226.GA13464@nevyn.them.org> References: <1583108256.20061108033019@kilgus.net> <6310169804.20061108221303@kilgus.net> <455256F2.6090006@bellard.org> <822249722.20061109003305@kilgus.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <822249722.20061109003305@kilgus.net> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 12:33:05AM +0100, Marcel Kilgus wrote: > Leaving that aside, if I do set the breakpoint correctly at virtual > address (e.g.) 0xC0123456 qemu will (correctly I guess) cause an > exception for code offset 0x123456 (as CS base is 0xC0000000). GDB > however then doesn't recognize its own breakpoint as it only remembers > having set one at 0xC0123456, and apparently doesn't translate the > given exception address of CS:0x123456 back to a virtual one. Which segment is it running from at this point? Qemu may be reporting the wrong address. > So all in all GDB just doesn't seem to cope very well with segmented > memory. Correct. It doesn't know anything at all about i386 segmentation. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery