From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 101844 invoked by alias); 15 Mar 2018 13:10:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 101833 invoked by uid 89); 15 Mar 2018 13:10:27 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=HTo:U*uweigand, H*x:5.0 X-HELO: forward106p.mail.yandex.net Received: from forward106p.mail.yandex.net (HELO forward106p.mail.yandex.net) (77.88.28.109) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 13:10:26 +0000 Received: from mxback18j.mail.yandex.net (mxback18j.mail.yandex.net [IPv6:2a02:6b8:0:1619::94]) by forward106p.mail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTP id D8B972D86232; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 16:10:22 +0300 (MSK) Received: from localhost (localhost [::1]) by mxback18j.mail.yandex.net (nwsmtp/Yandex) with ESMTP id VhWU4Pc7Ja-AKoKxaMJ; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 16:10:21 +0300 Received: by web34o.yandex.ru with HTTP; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 16:10:20 +0300 From: Vlad Ivanov To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: "schwab@suse.de" , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" In-Reply-To: <20180315125901.CE510D804A7@oc3748833570.ibm.com> References: <830441521113797@web37j.yandex.ru> from "Vlad Ivanov" at Mar 15, 2018 02:36:37 PM <20180315125901.CE510D804A7@oc3748833570.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdbarch: Add pc_signed field and use it when adjusting BP addresses MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <604111521119420@web34o.yandex.ru> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 13:10:00 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2018-03/txt/msg00297.txt.bz2 15.03.2018, 15:59, "Ulrich Weigand" : > If the address is already correct, why don't you simply set > gdbarch_significant_addr_bit > to 64 in the mips back-end instead of adding a new gdbarch routine? That would affect address printing. Moreover, semantically it's probably not a good practice because the code would imply that for all kind of MIPS all 64 bits of address are significant, whereas in reality it differs from target to target. Regards, Vlad