From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7750 invoked by alias); 3 Aug 2007 19:36:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 7741 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Aug 2007 19:36:36 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:36:34 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 670F498123; Fri, 3 Aug 2007 19:36:34 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4020498122; Fri, 3 Aug 2007 19:36:34 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IH2wp-0000Bl-Ue; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:36:31 -0400 Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:36:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Mark Kettenis Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfc] Adjust address size on MIPS Message-ID: <20070803193631.GA495@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20070803175822.GA11142@caradoc.them.org> <200708031837.l73IbSSG018774@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20070803185917.GA28107@caradoc.them.org> <200708031928.l73JSNdr013768@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200708031928.l73JSNdr013768@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) 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: 2007-08/txt/msg00073.txt.bz2 On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 09:28:23PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > Sorry, I meant to write "shouldn't PROPERTY_GP64 have been set in the > first place. > > Or differently phrased, if we receive a g packet with 64-bit we set > PROPERTY_GP64 isn't it? So shouldn't we use that property to set > decide whether we should sign extend the values in m packets? Yes. That's what this patch (hopefully) will do: if we detect 64-bit registers, tell the rest of GDB to assume 64-bit addresses. The problem comes from the default address size being the pointer size, and all the attendant MIPS ABI confusion. > I guess the fundamental problem here is that there is no consensus > about how gdb should handle running 32-bit mips code on a 64-bit cpu. > Should it present the isa of the executable, or should it present the > isa of the hardware the executable is running on. Amen. I've tried to improve this lately, but it's still rather a mess. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery