From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
To: uweigand@de.ibm.com
Cc: jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, drow@false.org, tromey@redhat.com,
mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [patch] Fix i386 memory-by-register access on amd64
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 18:00:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200907071759.n67HxhcF026713@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200907071624.n67GO6bj015890@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> (uweigand@de.ibm.com)
> Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 18:24:06 +0200 (CEST)
> From: "Ulrich Weigand" <uweigand@de.ibm.com>
>
> Jan Kratochvil wrote:
>
> > Updated the patch to do on 64bit hosts exactly the same what 32bit hosts do.
> > 32bit hosts do all the CORE_ADDR calculations 64bit, just the final ptrace
> > call strips the width to 32bits.
>
> Hmm, I'm wondering how this would affect platforms where addresses are
> generally treated as signed integers (MIPS ?). Dan, do you know if the
> kernel expects the ptrace address argument to be sign-extended on MIPS?
Yes, I expect that to be the case for targets that do an ILP32 ABI on
a 64-bit CPU where there's a "hole" in the moddle of the 64-bit
virtual adddress space.
> This should be done inside the TARGET_OBJECT_MEMORY case; there is no reason
> why the same truncation should be performed for other object types.
But then I don't understand Jan's diff at all. Linux has its own
implementation for TARGET_OBJECT_MEMORY in linux-nat.c. Why isn't
that one used?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-07-07 18:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-29 10:27 Jan Kratochvil
2009-04-29 19:05 ` Mark Kettenis
2009-04-29 20:29 ` Jan Kratochvil
2009-04-29 20:45 ` Jan Kratochvil
2009-06-25 16:33 ` Tom Tromey
2009-07-06 8:19 ` Jan Kratochvil
2009-07-07 16:24 ` Ulrich Weigand
2009-07-07 16:54 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2009-07-07 18:00 ` Mark Kettenis [this message]
2009-07-07 18:22 ` Jan Kratochvil
2009-07-07 18:43 ` Mark Kettenis
2009-07-08 13:20 ` [patch] /* */ for target_thread_architecture [Re: [patch] Fix i386 memory-by-register access on amd64] Jan Kratochvil
2009-07-09 12:51 ` Ulrich Weigand
2009-07-09 16:36 ` Jan Kratochvil
2009-07-08 14:42 ` [patch] Fix i386 memory-by-register access on amd64 Jan Kratochvil
2009-07-13 18:10 ` Ulrich Weigand
2009-07-13 19:42 ` Mark Kettenis
2009-07-13 20:32 ` Jan Kratochvil
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200907071759.n67HxhcF026713@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl \
--to=mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl \
--cc=drow@false.org \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=jan.kratochvil@redhat.com \
--cc=tromey@redhat.com \
--cc=uweigand@de.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox