From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13307 invoked by alias); 11 Oct 2007 01:29:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 13299 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Oct 2007 01:29:56 -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; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 01:29:54 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A838981F2; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 01:29:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1817D98153; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 01:29:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1Ifms2-0004W6-S9; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 21:29:50 -0400 Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 07:26:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Kevin Buettner Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, sakamoto.kei@renesas.com Subject: Re: [RFC] m32r-tdep.c: Fix sign extension problem during prologue analysis Message-ID: <20071011012950.GA17345@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Kevin Buettner , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, sakamoto.kei@renesas.com References: <20071010170252.65259f1a@ironwood.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071010170252.65259f1a@ironwood.lan> 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: 2007-10/txt/msg00259.txt.bz2 On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 05:02:52PM -0700, Kevin Buettner wrote: > I recently learned that there were far too many testsuite failures for > the m32r-elf target. I found that backtraces (among other things) > were badly broken and traced the problem to a lack of sign extension > for a particular instruction pattern during prologue analysis. > > Comments? (Is there a better way to do the sign extension?) That seems right to me. You could be more explicit about it, but there's no point if you assume that char is eight bits anyway. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery