From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4730 invoked by alias); 12 Sep 2002 15:30:09 -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 4714 invoked from network); 12 Sep 2002 15:30:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 12 Sep 2002 15:30:08 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17pWqi-0000KC-00; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 11:29:48 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17pVuq-0002xH-00; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 11:30:00 -0400 Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 08:30:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Fred Fish , "Maciej W. Rozycki" , binutils@sources.redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: MIPS sign extension of addresses Message-ID: <20020912153000.GA11343@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , Fred Fish , "Maciej W. Rozycki" , binutils@sources.redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <200209121449.g8CEnmL09055@beeville.vert.intrinsity.com> <3D80B08E.6050001@ges.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D80B08E.6050001@ges.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00114.txt.bz2 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