From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20220 invoked by alias); 8 Jun 2006 19:21:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 20209 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Jun 2006 19:21:35 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 08 Jun 2006 19:20:41 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k58JKZIZ015797; Thu, 8 Jun 2006 15:20:35 -0400 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k58JKYjW004834; Thu, 8 Jun 2006 15:20:34 -0400 Received: from [172.16.24.50] (bluegiant.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.50]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k58JKU71002140; Thu, 8 Jun 2006 15:20:31 -0400 Message-ID: <4488787D.2010601@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 19:21:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.4.1 (X11/20050929) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz CC: brobecker@adacore.com, GDB Patches , fnf@specifix.com, Jim Blandy Subject: Re: [RFA] mips, eabi64, addr_bit == 32 References: <447E25F0.3010009@redhat.com> <20060531233451.GA31663@nevyn.them.org> <447E29A3.509@redhat.com> <20060601015524.GA2685@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20060601015524.GA2685@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2006-06/txt/msg00080.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 04:41:23PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: > >>>Wasn't Fred just looking at this? Jim posted a better solution, >>>that needed to be updated to current sources. >>> >>>Setting addr_bit to 32 is incorrect, addresses have 64 bits on this >>>target. It's the use of TARGET_ADDR_BIT in the dwarf reader that's >>>wrong. >> >>'K, I'll look for Jim's post. About when was it posted? > > > Earlier this month: > > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2006-05/msg00226.html > Doesn't appear that any resolution ever came out of this.