From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21648 invoked by alias); 10 Apr 2007 06:57:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 21634 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Apr 2007 06:57:22 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 07:57:18 +0100 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l3A6vGQ0002785 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 02:57:16 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [10.11.255.20]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l3A6vGvD020591 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 02:57:16 -0400 Received: from ironwood.lan (vpn-14-72.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.14.72]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l3A6vFk8026687 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 02:57:16 -0400 Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 06:57:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Signed vs. unsigned adresses in solib-svr4 Message-ID: <20070409235714.26733223@ironwood.lan> In-Reply-To: <20070329175607.GB28418@caradoc.them.org> References: <20070327192144.GK28164@caradoc.them.org> <20070327203551.GA22750@caradoc.them.org> <20070329175607.GB28418@caradoc.them.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.10.4; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-04/txt/msg00073.txt.bz2 On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:56:07 -0400 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 01:38:36PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > > Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > > > > > On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 10:20:23PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > > >> > - since I know that the assumption is wrong for MIPS. Isn't there an > > >> > extract_address or something like that which would be suitable? > > >> > > >> There is extract_typed_address, but I don't know how to construct the > > >> struct type that it needs. > > > > > > Probably builtin_type_void_data_ptr is all you need. > > > > How about this then? Regtestest on > > {i386,ia64,ppc,ppc64,s390,s390x,x86_64}-linux. > > Looks good to me. Kevin, what do you think? I like it. Andreas, please commit this patch. Thanks, Kevin