Ulrich Weigand schrieb:
> Markus Deuling wrote:
> 
>> @@ -251,6 +252,7 @@ struct gdbarch startup_gdbarch =
>>    /*per-architecture data-pointers and swap regions */
>>    0, NULL, NULL,
>>    /* Multi-arch values */
>> +  0,  /* bits_big_endian */
>>    8 * sizeof (short),  /* short_bit */
>>    8 * sizeof (int),  /* int_bit */
>>    8 * sizeof (long),  /* long_bit */
> 
> The "static default" of 0 for bits_big_endian is inconsistent
> with the static default of BFD_ENDIAN_BIG for byte_order ...
> 
>> +# The bit byte-order has to do just with numbering of bits in debugging symbols
>> +# and such.  Conceptually, it's quite separate from byte/word byte order.
>> +v:int:bits_big_endian:::0:(gdbarch->byte_order == BFD_ENDIAN_BIG)::0
> 
> .... so I guess this should preferably be:
> 
> v:int:bits_big_endian:::1:(gdbarch->byte_order == BFD_ENDIAN_BIG)::0
> 
> Otherwise, this patch is OK, but please commit only together with ...
> 
>> I tested this patch on both Little and Big Endian machine (x86/ppc) without regression.
>> If this patch is ok I'll post another one for the documentation. Ok to commit?
> 
> .... the documentation patch (once that is approved).

Thanks a lot. I reworked and retested the patch on x86 and ppc.  I attached both the patch for
the source and the documentation.

Eli, is the documentation ok like this ?

ChangeLog Doc:

	* gdbint.texinfo (BITS_BIG_ENDIAN): Rewrite to match
	gdbarch_bits_big_endian.



-- 
  Markus Deuling
  GNU Toolchain for Linux on Cell BE
  deuling@de.ibm.com