From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18189 invoked by alias); 23 Jun 2009 14:02:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 18044 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Jun 2009 14:02:54 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:02:41 +0000 Received: (qmail 25052 invoked from network); 23 Jun 2009 14:02:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 23 Jun 2009 14:02:39 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Per-type architecture (Re: [10/15] Basic value access routines) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:02:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , Ulrich Weigand , Doug Evans References: <20090622205935.GA5900@caradoc.them.org> <200906230041.n5N0fMYW019073@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> <20090623134938.GA12312@caradoc.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20090623134938.GA12312@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200906231503.32497.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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: 2009-06/txt/msg00605.txt.bz2 On Tuesday 23 June 2009 14:49:38, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:41:22AM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > > - for values of bitfield type, the bitfield byte order (as you mention) > > We don't actually need the architecture for this, given the type. But > that's only because the way we record this in types requires the > architecture when building the type; I've seriously considered > rearranging it so that the type was architecture neutral and the value > architecture dependent. But it seems too fragile to touch without a > better reason... Would sharing of objfiles between inferiors be a reason? I can picture GDB debugging two inferiors with (maybe slightly or not) different gdbarchs loading the same shared object. -- Pedro Alves