From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1609 invoked by alias); 21 Aug 2007 11:14:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 1545 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Aug 2007 11:14:42 -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; Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:14:36 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEF81980C1; Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:14:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F7E7980C0; Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:14:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1INRgu-00056J-Eo; Tue, 21 Aug 2007 07:14:32 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:14:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Markus Deuling Cc: Ulrich Weigand , Jim Blandy , GDB Patches Subject: Re: [rfc] Wrap addresses in spu-gdb Message-ID: <20070821111432.GA19013@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Markus Deuling , Ulrich Weigand , Jim Blandy , GDB Patches References: <200708201842.l7KIg16S028544@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> <46CAB6B7.30806@de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <46CAB6B7.30806@de.ibm.com> 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/msg00410.txt.bz2 On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 11:56:07AM +0200, Markus Deuling wrote: > So there are three issues: > > 1) Should add-symbol-file set the function address to -in this case- 0x0 ? > SPU hardware would handle both 0x40000 and 0x80000 as 0x0. I don't know the answer to this one, but the current behavior is definitely strange. My guess is that something has wrapped the values to zero and decided that meant unspecified. > 2) As seen in my example "add-symbol-file" loads two functions to the same > addresses 0x100. > Is this valid? Yes. > 3) Should the used addresses in the testcase be changed to, for example, > 0x10000 and 0x20000? This would work for SPU, too. Or shall I introduce > variables for this addresses and set them to a range < SPU_LS_SIZE for > SPU targets only? I think changing the addresses is fine. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery