Re: MIPS sign extension of addresses

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 11:19:42AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >> Well, that seems the reason of the trouble -- for MIPS addresses in
> >>object and executable files should be treated as signed and bfd_vma should
> >>be a signed type since that's how MIPS works. 
> >
> >
> >So does that mean that it would be more desirable if the MIPS ports used
> >signed long long for bfd_vma/CORE_ADDR instead of unsigned long long?
> >
> >I'm willing to work on making that happen if that is the consensus for
> >making MIPS support more consistent with how the hardware works.
> >
> >I've not yet checked, but are there fundamental reasons why bfd_vma
> >or CORE_ADDR have to be unsigned?
> 
> I don't think it will help.  I think it will also hinder the situtation 
> where BFD/GDB are supporting multiple architectures - one signed and one 
> unsigned.

Oh, Andrew's right.  Signed CORE_ADDR isn't viable because other
architectures have and assume an unsigned address space.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer