From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24765 invoked by alias); 23 Jan 2008 19:29:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 24756 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Jan 2008 19:29:14 -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, 23 Jan 2008 19:28:44 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6771A98375; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:28:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41444980E0; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:28:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JHlH8-0005rO-9a; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:28:42 -0500 Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:29:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Jim Blandy Cc: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches Subject: Re: arm_addr_bits_remove Message-ID: <20080123192842.GA22477@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Jim Blandy , Pedro Alves , gdb-patches References: <47965D31.3040602@codesourcery.com> <8f2776cb0801221525w1d26661dgf6452f876197a591@mail.gmail.com> <479752C8.8030201@portugalmail.pt> <8f2776cb0801231121r3fe9aea0q6f3c3d6887fcb251@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8f2776cb0801231121r3fe9aea0q6f3c3d6887fcb251@mail.gmail.com> 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: 2008-01/txt/msg00561.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 11:21:50AM -0800, Jim Blandy wrote: > It seems like the use of gdbarch_addr_bits_remove originated in 2001: > > 2001-04-06 Fernando Nasser > > * buildsym.c (record_line): Turn off unused addr bits. > > Could we try simply removing this? It was for Thumb in the first place. http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2001-03/msg00182.html http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2001-04/msg00012.html That may not be true on new toolchains though. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery