From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10918 invoked by alias); 24 Jan 2006 19:27:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 10908 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Jan 2006 19:27:22 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 19:27:20 +0000 Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (root@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl [192.168.0.2]) by sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k0OJPxmn008311; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 20:25:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.4/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k0OJPwvt009111; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 20:25:58 +0100 (CET) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id k0OJPwwt002920; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 20:25:58 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 19:27:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200601241925.k0OJPwwt002920@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: mark@codesourcery.com CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <200601240555.k0O5tGmu007234@sethra.codesourcery.com> (message from Mark Mitchell on Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:55:16 -0800) Subject: Re: PATCH: Fix LP64 model bug in PPC simulator References: <200601240555.k0O5tGmu007234@sethra.codesourcery.com> 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: 2006-01/txt/msg00367.txt.bz2 > Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:55:16 -0800 > From: Mark Mitchell > > The PowerPC simulator didn't work on a little-endian LP64 platform > (like x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu). The problem turned out to be that > ppc/sim/words.h is defining {un,}signed32 unconditionally as "long" -- > but then depending on that being 32 bits. Fixed with a bit of > autoconfiscation. Tested by verifying that I can now run a simple > PowerPC binary in simulation on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. > > OK? Any reason not to just use 'int'? I'm pretty sure our code base makes that assumption in a lot of places. Mark