From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32358 invoked by alias); 10 Jul 2003 15:33:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 32334 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2003 15:33:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hub.ott.qnx.com) (209.226.137.76) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Jul 2003 15:33:24 -0000 Received: from smtp.ott.qnx.com (smtp.ott.qnx.com [10.0.2.158]) by hub.ott.qnx.com (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA21327; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:24:34 -0400 Received: from catdog ([10.4.2.2]) by smtp.ott.qnx.com (8.8.8/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA22715; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:33:23 -0400 Message-ID: <0c5d01c346f8$aa558170$0202040a@catdog> From: "Kris Warkentin" To: "Kevin Buettner" Cc: "Gdb@Sources.Redhat.Com" References: <008001c34173$d6d20b40$0202040a@catdog> <1030708201312.ZM4704@localhost.localdomain> <0c4d01c346f4$c69d0690$0202040a@catdog> <1030710151522.ZM28386@localhost.localdomain> Subject: Re: mipsbe solib event breakpoint endian? Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:33:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg00129.txt.bz2 > On Jul 10, 11:06am, Kris Warkentin wrote: > > > Finally got around to chasing this again and I've found the problem. I'm > > hoping someone might be able to explain why I'm seeing what I'm seeing. > > > > GDB-5.2.1 targetting QNX MipsBE: > > Breakpoint 4, enable_break () at ../../gdb/solib-svr4.c:939 > > 939 if (!load_addr_found) > > (top) n > > 940 load_addr = read_pc () - tmp_bfd->start_address; > > (top) p read_pc() > > $1 = 1882417036 > > (top) p /x read_pc() > > $2 = 0x7033678c > > (top) > > > > > > GDB-HEAD targetting QNX MipsBE: > > Breakpoint 3, enable_break () at ../../gdb/solib-svr4.c:1039 > > 1039 load_addr = read_pc () - tmp_bfd->start_address; > > (top) p read_pc() > > $1 = 8084919611063009279 > > (top) p /x read_pc() > > $2 = 0x7033678ceeffffff > > (top) > > > > Looks like someone thinks the program counter is a 64 bit value.... Any > > hints? > > Do "maint print arch" in both to see what's changed. Would you believe that they're exactly the same? I ran maint print arch on both, copied to text files and diffed them. No differences. That sounds almost impossible doesn't it? I had to do it twice before I believed it. cheers, Kris