From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-12084-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 21188 invoked by alias); 19 Jan 2002 16:06:47 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 21111 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2002 16:06:43 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.230.5)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Jan 2002 16:06:43 -0000
Received: from telocity.telocity.com (taarna.sfbay.redhat.com [205.180.230.102])
	by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with SMTP id IAA24685;
	Sat, 19 Jan 2002 08:06:38 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3C49987F.1F00@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 08:06:00 -0000
From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Eliminate TARGET_BYTE_ORDER_SELECTABLE
References: <3C490B0C.6090601@cygnus.com> <20020119094718.A1404@nevyn.them.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00529.txt.bz2

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Jan 19, 2002 at 12:58:36AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > All multi-arch targets (yep, including the i386) allow the byte order to
> > be selected at run time.  This means that the macro
> > TARGET_BYTE_ORDER_SELECTABLE which was used by non-multi-arch targets is
> > obsolete.
> >
> > The attached patch eliminates that macro.  I've tested it on a
> > multi-arch target and I don't think it breaks non-multi-arch targets.
> >
> > Anyway, I intend committing this in a few days.
> > Andrew
> 
> Hmm, I don't know.  Do we really want to do this?  This allows, for
> instance, 'set endian big' on i386.  That may someday make someone
> think that GDB supports such a beast, on the off chance one is ever
> made.

There's a fairly good chance that gdb WOULD support such a
beast (on the off chance that one is ever made).  If we've
done our jobs and used "extract_unsigned_integer" etc. 
instead of reading things directly from memory...