From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19923 invoked by alias); 13 Sep 2006 20:23:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 19915 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Sep 2006 20:23:21 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.palmsource.com (HELO mx2.palmsource.com) (12.7.175.14) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Sep 2006 20:23:19 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.domain.tld (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A581263CF; Wed, 13 Sep 2006 13:23:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.palmsource.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx2.palmsource.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 32328-05-2; Wed, 13 Sep 2006 13:23:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ussunex01.palmsource.com (unknown [192.168.101.9]) by mx2.palmsource.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FCE6261CD; Wed, 13 Sep 2006 13:23:15 -0700 (PDT) Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [RFC] h8300 "info registers" fix Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 20:23:00 -0000 Message-ID: <0F4DF2E21F33DD46BE7B8CDEEB0E16D307EAB3@ussunex01.palmsource.com> References: <0F4DF2E21F33DD46BE7B8CDEEB0E16D307EAB2@ussunex01.palmsource.com> <20060913200917.GA20574@nevyn.them.org> From: "Michael Snyder" To: "Daniel Jacobowitz" , X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-09/txt/msg00069.txt.bz2 Grumble -- is the regcache kept in host order, or target order? I can never remember. Anyway, good call. The read is done using a gdb_byte[4], while the write is done using an unsigned long. Surely they can't both be correct -- it should be one or the other. Besides, a host unsigned long can't be right, 'cause we don't=20 even know what size it is.=20=20 -----Original Message----- From: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org on behalf of Daniel Jacobowitz Sent: Wed 9/13/2006 1:09 PM To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] h8300 "info registers" fix =20 On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 01:00:17PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: >=20 > At Wed, 13 Sep 2006 00:04:58 +0900, > Yoshinori Sato wrote: > > I modified it in technique to think that I was appropriate. >=20 > OK, much better. Just one more question. >=20 > Your change to h8300_pseudo_register_read (and write): is it because > someone is calling the function with a one-byte buffer? I assume so,=20 > but who is making that call? I'm not familiar with this target, but are there host endianness problems with this patch? Casting an unsigned long * pointer to a gdb_byte * pointer is very suspicious. --=20 Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery