Re: [PATCH] review request: implementing DW_AT_endianity

[Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>]

>>>>> "Peeter" == Peeter Joot <peeter.joot@gmail.com> writes:

I happened to run across this patch today.

What's the status of it?

Peeter> +enum bfd_endian
Peeter> +type_byte_order (struct gdbarch * gdbarch, struct type *type)
Peeter> +{
Peeter> +  if (TYPE_ENDIANITY_BIG (type))
Peeter> +    return BFD_ENDIAN_BIG;
Peeter> +  else if (TYPE_ENDIANITY_LITTLE (type))
Peeter> +    return BFD_ENDIAN_LITTLE;
Peeter> +  if (!gdbarch)
Peeter> +    gdbarch = get_type_arch (type);
Peeter> +  return gdbarch_byte_order (gdbarch);

Does it ever make sense to call type_byte_order with a gdbarch other
than the type's gdbarch?  I would assume not but I'm not really sure.
What would this mean?

Anyway, if it doesn't make sense, then I'd suggest just removing the
gdbarch parameter.

Peeter> +  unsigned int flag_endianity_big : 1;
Peeter> +  unsigned int flag_endianity_little : 1;

It also seems to me that perhaps only a single bit is needed --
something like:

   unsigned int flag_endian_differs_from_arch : 1;

Then type_byte_order could do:

  enum bfd_endian endian = gdbarch_byte_order (...);
  if (blah blah flag_endian_differs_from_arch)
    endian = (endian == BFD_ENDIAN_LITTLE) ? BFD_ENDIAN_BIG : BFD_ENDIAN_LITTLE;

Of course this only makes sense if the arch endianness can't change
somehow, and if only the type's arch can be used to get the endianness.

Tom