From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3163 invoked by alias); 15 Jul 2006 10:34:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 3154 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Jul 2006 10:34:05 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from wx-out-0102.google.com (HELO wx-out-0102.google.com) (66.249.82.193) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 15 Jul 2006 10:34:03 +0000 Received: by wx-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id t11so425420wxc for ; Sat, 15 Jul 2006 03:34:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.61.19 with SMTP id j19mr560050wxa; Sat, 15 Jul 2006 03:34:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.26.5 with HTTP; Sat, 15 Jul 2006 03:33:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <40c9f5b20607150333o22a5b86cr6f204c285894c504@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 10:34:00 -0000 From: "zhigang gong" To: "zhigang gong" , "Corinna Vinschen" , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Wrong data type in function unpack_varlen_hex() In-Reply-To: <20060713153608.GA26468@nevyn.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <40c9f5b20606160558v277bb813r9d5a497c9899432@mail.gmail.com> <20060713040658.GZ24622@nevyn.them.org> <40c9f5b20607130819u4dba5d48u636ffd1cb99db77f@mail.gmail.com> <20060713152349.GA26052@nevyn.them.org> <20060713153608.GA26468@nevyn.them.org> Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-07/txt/msg00172.txt.bz2 Hi, I checked HEAD out and tested it just now. The "rwatch" and "awatch" both work well. On 7/13/06, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 11:23:49AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > Corinna, what do you think? The context is the remote protocol reply > > "rwatch:0x80000000"; a bug previously caused this to be sign extended, > > but now that's been fixed. So I'm afraid we now have the same bug you > > were both trying to fix back again. > > Maybe we should be using gdbarch_integer_to_address here too? > > Or maybe that hook ought to be completely removed and consolidated with > something else. There's a whole bunch of related hooks. With your > recent change, mips_integer_to_address basically matches > signed_pointer_to_address. > > -- > Daniel Jacobowitz > CodeSourcery >