Re: Signed vs. unsigned adresses in solib-svr4

[Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>]

Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> writes:

> On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 09:16:28PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> All but two places in solib-svr4.c assume unsigned target addresses.  This
>> patch fixes these two occurences of extract_signed_integer to make things
>> consistent.
>> 
>> Andreas.
>> 
>> 2007-03-27  Andreas Schwab  <schwab@suse.de>
>> 
>> 	* solib-svr4.c (LM_ADDR_FROM_LINK_MAP): Use
>> 	extract_unsigned_integer instead of extract_signed_integer.
>> 	(LM_DYNAMIC_FROM_LINK_MAP): Likewise.
>
> I'd rather not unless this fixes a real problem

If your CORE_ADDR is 64bit, but the target is 32bit you get an address
that does not exist on the target.

> - since I know that the assumption is wrong for MIPS.  Isn't there an
> extract_address or something like that which would be suitable?

There is extract_typed_address, but I don't know how to construct the
struct type that it needs.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."