Re: [PATCH 2/7] Move some integer operations to common.

Antoine Tremblay
2015-09-24T11:53:25Z

On 09/23/2015 04:40 PM, Doug Evans wrote:

> > It would also introduce a bfd version dependency in common code to
> check
> > for this static header. And it could be quite an ugly #ifdef changing
> > ints to enum in case the header is present.
>
> This is a non-issue. gdb always uses bfd HEAD, and in general
> we don't support uses of bfd outside of binutils and gdb.

Ok thanks, good to know.

>
> > One thing to consider too is that this patchset has now changed a bit
> > and this enum is no longer used in GDBServer itself at all.
>
> I'm less interested in whether the enum is used in gdbserver than
> whether it is used in the common code (and thus by extension
> it still matters what gdbserver uses).
>

Humm I think this will become more clear when I post the updated
pathset, I suggest we restart this point when I do that if needed.

> We *could* just use a bool, is_big_endian or is_little_endian.
> The code today assumes it never sees BFD_ENDIAN_UNKNOWN,
> which would be nice to fix.
> Or we could invent a new enum that just has big/little endian.

Given that BFD_ENDIAN_UNKNOWN is used in a few places in GDB I would
move to fix the functions where it's not taken into consideration and
should be... but it can be part of another patch set.