Re: [RFA:] sim-config.c: When having a bfd, don't just check bfd_little_endian

[Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>]

Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
>>Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:11:56 -0500
>>From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
> 
> 
>>>Index: sim-config.c
>>>===================================================================
>>>RCS file: /cvs/src/src/sim/common/sim-config.c,v
>>>retrieving revision 1.2
>>>diff -c -p -r1.2 sim-config.c
>>>*** sim-config.c	23 Nov 2002 01:12:05 -0000	1.2
>>>--- sim-config.c	9 Nov 2004 19:41:07 -0000
>>>*************** sim_config (SIM_DESC sd)
>>>*** 146,152 ****
>>>    SIM_ASSERT (STATE_MAGIC (sd) == SIM_MAGIC_NUMBER);
>>>  
>>>    /* extract all relevant information */
>>>!   if (STATE_PROG_BFD (sd) == NULL)
>>>      prefered_target_byte_order = 0;
>>>    else
>>>      prefered_target_byte_order = (bfd_little_endian(STATE_PROG_BFD (sd))
>>>--- 146,156 ----
>>>    SIM_ASSERT (STATE_MAGIC (sd) == SIM_MAGIC_NUMBER);
>>>  
>>>    /* extract all relevant information */
>>>!   if (STATE_PROG_BFD (sd) == NULL
>>>!       /* If we have a binary input file (presumably with specified
>>>! 	 "--architecture"), it'll have no endianness.  */
>>>!       || (!bfd_little_endian (STATE_PROG_BFD (sd))
>>>! 	  && !bfd_big_endian (STATE_PROG_BFD (sd))))
>>
>>Yes, although this three way case better expressed using a switch. 
> 
> 
> Not one I see, not without looking at bfd private data
> abfd->xvec->byteorder or introducing a multi-valued accessor for
> the bfd endian data or expressing it awkwardly along the lines of:
>  switch (2 * (bfd_little_endian (STATE_PROG_BFD (sd) != false))
>          + (bfd_big_endian (STATE_PROG_BFD (sd) != false)))
>    ...

Ah, GDB exposes all three states, BFD doesn't :-/  Never mind.

Andrew

>>Change it before committing if you care.
> 
> 
> Since you made it optional I committed as-is; I didn't see an
> obvious and simple way to better express it as a switch.
> 
> brgds, H-P
>