From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30078 invoked by alias); 12 May 2006 19:57:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 30064 invoked by uid 22791); 12 May 2006 19:57:01 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Fri, 12 May 2006 19:56:39 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FedkY-0004Pk-7z; Fri, 12 May 2006 15:56:34 -0400 Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 20:07:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Mark Kettenis Cc: fnf@specifix.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] DWARF 2 address size != pointer size Message-ID: <20060512195634.GA16903@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Mark Kettenis , fnf@specifix.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200605101424.11088.fnf@specifix.com> <200605121951.k4CJp1ao000358@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200605121951.k4CJp1ao000358@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2006-05/txt/msg00260.txt.bz2 On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 09:51:02PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > From: Fred Fish > > Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 14:24:10 -0400 > > > > For at least one target, MIPS using the o64 ABI with -mlong64, the > > target DWARF2 address size used in the DWARF info (32 bit) is not the > > same as the target pointer size (64 bit). > > Unbelievable. As if there aren't enough ABI's for MIPS yet. But how > can this work? If the pointers are really 64-bit, how can they be > encoded in the 32-bit DWARF2 adresses? [Mark, I just got a delayed bounce from your procmail for an earlier message. Let's see if I get another...] It's a code model thing. It has 64-bit pointers, but all symbols are 32-bit, and IIRC it actually uses 32-bit ELF. > I think introducing TARGET_DWARF_ADDR_BIT is a mistake if the debug > info already encodes the info. I do too. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery