Re: [RFA] arm_store_return_value, big-endian (take 2)

[Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com>]

> Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > 
> > > Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Leaving asside the issue of the correctness of write_register_bytes (note
> > > > > > to self, must finish of my register patches), I don't think this is
> > > > > > correct -- in fact, I think it's also wrong for little-endian as well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What should happen is that the smaller-than-word value should be
> > > > > > zero/sign-extended to 32 bits and then the whole thing stored in A1_REGNUM.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah, thanks.  OK, how about this?
> > > > >
> > > > > 2002-11-06  Michael Snyder  <msnyder@redhat.com>
> > > > >
> > > > >       * arm-tdep.c (arm_store_return_value): Handle offset of
> > > > >       small types on big-endian machines.
> > > >
> > > > And for little-endian?
> > >
> > > It already works for little-endian.  I've tested this with
> > > arm-sim, arm-sim/-mbig-endian, and arm-sim/-mthumb.
> > 
> > But it's not zero/sign extending properly for little-endian, so garbage is
> > remaining in the top part of A1
> 
> Ah; well, I didn't make it any worse!  ;-)
> Can I leave that detail for someone else, and just
> submit this minor improvement?

Given that to fix this for little-endian as well means that you just have 
to *remove* the endianness test from your patch, why is that so hard???!!!!

Also, you should add a comment at this point explaining that we want to 
extend the value into the whole register.

R.