From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24553 invoked by alias); 19 Dec 2007 15:28:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 24543 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Dec 2007 15:28:41 -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; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:28:34 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B60298150; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:28:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E82809814F; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:28:27 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1J50qQ-00080R-Qc; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:28:26 -0500 Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:28:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, David Ung , "Maciej W. Rozycki" Subject: Re: mips-tdep.c: Sign-extend pointers for n32 Message-ID: <20071219152826.GA30488@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, David Ung , "Maciej W. Rozycki" References: <20071216184625.GA22905@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) 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: 2007-12/txt/msg00317.txt.bz2 On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 03:20:20PM +0000, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > You are quite right here -- I have checked the N32 ABI document and it > says: > > "32-bit integer (int) parameters are always sign-extended when passed in > registers, whether of signed or unsigned type. [This issue does not arise > in the o32-bit ABI.]" What happens to an 8-bit unsigned char? How about an 8-bit signed char? > I have regression-tested the following rewrite of the original patch > using the mipsisa32-sde-elf target, with the mips-sim-sde64/-mips64/-EB > and mips-sim-sde64/-mips64/-EL boards, with the results the same as the > original. What ABI is that? I thought none of the ELF targets used n32 or n64, but maybe SDE is an exception. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery