From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14936 invoked by alias); 20 Jan 2002 18:36:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 14895 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2002 18:36:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Jan 2002 18:36:38 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16SMpU-0005uz-00; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 13:36:32 -0500 Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 10:36:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Eliminate TARGET_BYTE_ORDER_SELECTABLE Message-ID: <20020120133632.A22738@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <3C490B0C.6090601@cygnus.com> <20020119094718.A1404@nevyn.them.org> <3C49A566.1060508@cygnus.com> <20020119120032.A19415@nevyn.them.org> <3C4B0D79.4070005@cygnus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3C4B0D79.4070005@cygnus.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00577.txt.bz2 On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 01:33:29PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > >Woah! That's neat! I need to remember that :) > > > >And I suppose I of all people shouldn't be griping about allowing more > >endianness choices. I have a patch here to support big-endian > >ARM/Linux. All I did was change TARGET_BYTE_ORDER_*. > > > Delete it :-) As Michael observed, if the code is written correctly it > works from day one. (Problem is it has taken ~10 years to figure out > how to correctly write the code :-) Well, I need to set TARGET_BYTE_ORDER_DEFAULT. If you start a cross debugger without giving it a binary, and attach to a random remote target, then we need to default to the right one. Other than that everything is fine, though! > Oh, if you think that is neat, just wait until someone adds byte-order > information to ``struct type''. As it is, gdb knows about the byte > order of certain floating-point types. :-) And GCC keeps talking about supporting data types with arbitrary byte order... :) -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer