From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28478 invoked by alias); 21 Apr 2008 17:57:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 28466 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Apr 2008 17:57:38 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from bluesmobile.specifix.com (HELO bluesmobile.specifix.com) (216.129.118.140) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:57:19 +0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (bluesmobile.specifix.com [216.129.118.140]) by bluesmobile.specifix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CA003BFD6; Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:57:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: address space support From: Michael Snyder To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Doug Evans , gdb@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <20080420143205.GA24679@caradoc.them.org> References: <480A2002.9050405@sebabeach.org> <20080420143205.GA24679@caradoc.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:25:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1208800635.4615.88.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.3 (2.10.3-7.fc7) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-04/txt/msg00186.txt.bz2 On Sun, 2008-04-20 at 10:32 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 09:38:26AM -0700, Doug Evans wrote: > > But that's a ton of work, and not necessarily a maintainable way to go > > (the common case is addresses are just ints). Hacking CORE_ADDR by > > putting the address space in the upper bits doesn't necessarily work > > either. > > May not necessarily work but that's the state of the art. All the > targets with address spaces in GDB today have relatively small > addressable areas so there are some bits to use. And we use the same > convention for CORE_ADDR that GNU binutils uses in the ELF symbol > table, generally. > > Also see "@code" and "@data", though there's nothing in the manual > about them... TYPE_FLAG_CODE_SPACE and TYPE_FLAG_DATA_SPACE. Erm, yeah -- those were something I did in 2001, when I was at Red Hat. See ChangeLog-2001. I'd vaguely hoped that the work might be extensible to include general address spaces... Sorry about the missing docs -- Eli, why didn't you catch me on that one? ;-)