From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17747 invoked by alias); 24 Jun 2004 20:57:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 17722 invoked from network); 24 Jun 2004 20:56:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO moutng.kundenserver.de) (212.227.126.185) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 24 Jun 2004 20:56:59 -0000 Received: from [212.227.126.209] (helo=mrelayng.kundenserver.de) by moutng.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1BdbHG-00045G-00; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 22:56:58 +0200 Received: from [217.235.209.48] (helo=[217.235.209.48]) by mrelayng.kundenserver.de with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1BdbHF-0006LQ-00; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 22:56:58 +0200 Message-ID: <40DB3FF9.6050509@kay-mueller.de> Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 20:57:00 -0000 From: Michael Mueller User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Kettenis CC: m.mueller99@kay-mueller.de, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC]: patch #2 for Sun C compiled target programs References: <40D32489.9070503@kay-mueller.de> <200406182159.i5ILxF9G001540@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <40D6F901.3010008@kay-mueller.de> <200406241947.i5OJlgKr017239@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <200406241947.i5OJlgKr017239@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: kundenserver.de abuse@kundenserver.de auth:acfe4e233830c7fd36d26ada4c2bf87e X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg00522.txt.bz2 Mark Kettenis wrote: > Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 17:04:33 +0200 > From: Michael Mueller > > > > > The real problem is that dbxread.c was initially written as 32-bit > > only code. The sign-extension problem you're seeing here can also be > > interpreted as a 64-bit-dirty issue. > > So how can it be fixed? > > Not sure. As I said, it's not easy. As far as I understand things, > INTERNALIZE_SYMBOL() should look at n_type to decide whether n_value > should be treated as a signed or an unsigned value. The problem seems > to be that n_value can either be interpreted as an address or as an > offset. Addresses should be sign-extended based on what > bfd_get_sign_extend_vma() tells us. Offsets should probably always be > sign-extended. > > Mark > How about sign extending it a bit alter in process_one_symbol when we find out it's a stack variable? I cannot imagine an architecture where a stack variable has an absolute address. But my imagination is limited. Michael