[rfc/rfa:doc] INTEGER_TO_ADDRESS; Was: INTEGER_TO_ADDRESS(), thoughts?

Andrew Cagney
2001-09-25T14:25:00Z

Hello,

Following up the thread on gdb@sources, this introduces an
INTEGER_TO_ADDRESS() method which both the d10v and the MIPS use.

Since JimB gave a very good explination as to the problems it has and a
guideline to its use, I included that at the point it is used. I think
including ``pragmatics'' such as that is a good thing. The other
possability is to add it to the doco.

The only thing I'm not sure about is the name. The type of the input
parameter isn't necessary an integer. The name reflecting more the
intent that the target first convert it to an integer and then to an
address.

Andrew
From vinschen@redhat.com Tue Sep 25 14:54:00 2001
From: Corinna Vinschen <vinschen@redhat.com>
To: gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH]: testsuite/gdb.base/constvars.exp
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 14:54:00 -0000
Message-id: <20010925235356.P29024@cygbert.vinschen.de>
References: <20010925192434.M29024@cygbert.vinschen.de> <3BB0C224.AB324D56@cygnus.com> <3BB0CB81.8385E123@redhat.com> <3BB0F122.3E45B3ED@cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-09/msg00338.html
Content-length: 1584

On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 02:03:30PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote:
> Fernando Nasser wrote:
> >
> > Michael Snyder wrote:
> > >
> > > Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I patched the test constvars.exp to get rid of the $gcc_compiled
> > > > compile dependencies which result in XFAIL behaviour when the
> > > > tests are compiled with GCC. AFAICS, they aren't needed if just
> > > > the tests are more correct.
> > > >
> > > > E.g., the testsuite expects strings like "unsigned long" while
> > > > gdb may also emit "long unsigned" or "long unsigned int".
> > > >
> > > > The below patch cares for that.
> > > >
> > > > Corinna
> > >
> > > The test was originally submitted by HP, and probably
> > > worked only with the HP compiler. I like the idea of
> > > extending itto work with GCC, but I wonder -- will this
> > > work with stabs? Or only with dwarf?
> > >
> > > And if it won't work with stabs -- do we care?
> > >
> >
> > Can someone please help us and try it with stabs?
>
> OK, I've tried it. Alas, it does not work. And native Linux
> still uses stabs, so that means we care. ;-( Sorry, Corinna.
> It's a good change, but we need some kind of test that applies
> the xfails for stabs and not for dwarf.
>
> In the meantime, if you want to just check in the regular expression
> changes, I'm sure that would be OK -- it would preserve your work.

What I don't understand is why it's coupled to `gcc_compiled'
while it's in reality target dependend.

Corinna

--
Corinna Vinschen
Cygwin Developer
Red Hat, Inc.
mailto:vinschen@redhat.com