From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@is.elta.co.il>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [rfc/rfa:doc] INTEGER_TO_ADDRESS; Was: INTEGER_TO_ADDRESS(), thoughts?
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 13:29:00 -0000
Message-id: <3BBB751B.70601@cygnus.com>
References: <3BA7F150.9060302@cygnus.com> <np1ykw8bny.fsf@zwingli.cygnus.com> <3BB0F62D.1080702@cygnus.com> <3BB8CA42.8030209@cygnus.com> <7458-Tue02Oct2001091222+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-SW-Source: 2001-10/msg00061.html

> Since most of this sentence is in plural, I think it should start with
> "When the users copy".


Hmm, I changed it all to single.  Along with the other tweeks I ended up 
with:

+
+ @item INTEGER_TO_ADDRESS (@var{type}, @var{buf})
+ @findex INTEGER_TO_ADDRESS
+ @cindex converting integers to addresses
+ Define this when the architecture needs to handle non-pointer to address
+ conversions specially.  Converts that value to an address according to
+ the current architectures conventions.
+
+ @emph{Pragmatics: When the user copies a well defined expression from
+ their source code and pass it, as a parameter, to @value{GDBN}'s
+ @code{print} command, they should get the same value as would have been
+ computed by the target program.  Any deviation from this rule can cause
+ major confusion and annoyance, and needs to be justified carefully.  In
+ other words, @value{GDBN} doesn't really have the freedom to do these
+ conversions in clever and useful ways.  It has, however, been pointed
+ out that users aren't complaining about how @value{GDBN} casts integers
+ to pointers; they are complaining that they can't take an address from a
+ disassembly listing and give it to @code{x/i}.  Adding an architecture
+ method like @code{INTEGER_TO_ADDRESS} certainly makes it possible for
+ @value{GDBN} to ``get it right'' in all circumstances.}
+
+ @xref{Target Architecture Definition, , Pointers Are Not Always
+ Addresses}.

hope its right,

Andrew