From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Elena Zannoni To: Fernando Nasser Cc: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: [buildsym.c] Turn off unused addr bits in linetable Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 17:37:00 -0000 Message-id: <15047.51630.461134.422903@kwikemart.cygnus.com> References: <3AAD70B6.A9C16F36@redhat.com> <3AAE3502.BFFE90D2@cygnus.com> <3AAE5652.8EDD98FA@redhat.com> <3AB15D24.AA6457B9@redhat.com> <3AB1733B.FEC3833E@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-04/msg00012.html Fernando, did you check this in? Thanks for investigating. BTW. Sh doesn't define ADDR_BITS_REMOVE. But it uses it! I'll have to fix that. Elena Andrew Cagney writes: > Fernando Nasser wrote: > > > > Andrew, > > > > I looked at all the targets that define ADDR_BITS_REMOVE() (which are > > arm, h8500, m88k, mips, pa, w65, z8k and sh) and all that define > > BREAKPOINT_FROM_PC() (which are arm, mips, mcore and mn10300, as far as > > I can tell). > > > > I am convinced that this is the right thing to do. I really wonder, in > > some cases, how could it have worked without it (maybe the stub or the > > OS cleared the bits for us). > > I suspect that it is like the 32 bit MIPS - no one was sure how it > should work. Only when the decision that the 32 bit MIPS was have all > addresses converted to cannonical form (i.e. sign extend them) did a > heap of problems get flushed. > > I'd lace your patch with comments explaining how the table contains > cannonical addresses and those addresses don't contain any stray magic > bits. That way the next person will know where the error is when they > find a comparison is doing strange things because the addresses don't > quite match. > > > Anyway, there is only one way of knowing it for sure. The only thing we > > know right now is that ARM is broken without it. > > > > OK to commit? > > I withdraw my objection. I think the maintainer had already approved > it. > > Thanks for investigating this! > > Andrew > > PS: A multi-arch footnote (Hi nick :-): At some stage or another, an > additional interface into BFD is going to be needed so that GDB can ask > BFD what the architecture/machine tupple for a given address is. > Details are for much later. This is just a little flag :-) >