Re: CORE_ADDR representation

Daniel Jacobowitz
2010-02-18T14:11:57Z

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 09:41:51PM -0800, Stan Shebs wrote:
> I would say to declare that CORE_ADDR is fundamentally 0..memtop, so
> it should be unsigned and zero-extend.
>
> Can unsigned->signed->diddle->unsigned be encapsulated for MIPS only?

I don't know that it can't. I think I discussed this with Andrew many
years ago, and he thought that it couldn't; but I can't find the details...

--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery