From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4226 invoked by alias); 8 Jan 2003 09:48:27 -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 4218 invoked from network); 8 Jan 2003 09:48:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com) (193.131.176.3) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 8 Jan 2003 09:48:24 -0000 Received: by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com; id JAA28269; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 09:48:12 GMT Received: from unknown(172.16.1.2) by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com via smap (V5.5) id xma027611; Wed, 8 Jan 03 09:47:48 GMT Received: from pc960.cambridge.arm.com (pc960.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.205.4]) by cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA20826; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 09:47:48 GMT Received: from pc960.cambridge.arm.com (rearnsha@localhost) by pc960.cambridge.arm.com (8.11.6/8.9.3) with ESMTP id h089llm10487; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 09:47:47 GMT Message-Id: <200301080947.h089llm10487@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> X-Authentication-Warning: pc960.cambridge.arm.com: rearnsha owned process doing -bs To: Michael Snyder cc: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com, Fernando Nasser , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, rearnsha@arm.com, cagney@redhat.com, kevinb@redhat.com, fnasser Reply-To: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com Organization: ARM Ltd. X-Telephone: +44 1223 400569 (direct+voicemail), +44 1223 400400 (switchbd) X-Fax: +44 1223 400410 X-Address: ARM Ltd., 110 Fulbourn Road, Cherry Hinton, Cambridge CB1 9NJ. Subject: Re: [RFA] arm_extract_return_value, big-endian In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 07 Jan 2003 15:46:04 PST." <3E1B66BC.B5D75FEA@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 09:48:00 -0000 From: Richard Earnshaw X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00320.txt.bz2 > Richard Earnshaw wrote: > > > > fnasser@redhat.com said: > > > Humm..., I am having second thoughts about this. Isn't the problem > > > you are seeing the same problem of not having the values peoperly > > > sign-extended? > > > > No. In this case we really need to copy the least significant 1 (or 2) > > bytes into the 1 or 2 bytes in the valbuf target. That means doing a copy > > from the higher addresses. So in that respect, the patch is correct. > > > > But it breaks the case where the return value is more than one word. > > Yes, I see that now. Richard, how about a joint effort? > Would you be so kind as to fill in the empty else clause? I think I've already fixed this. Did you miss my request that you test it for me on a big-endian system? http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-12/msg00444.html R.