Re: MIPS sign extension of addresses

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@ges.redhat.com>]

> On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> 
> 
>> > >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.
> 
> 
>  Because MIPS is a minority?

Actually no.  GDB supports pure harvard architectures (non-unified 
instruction and data spaces).  Such targets have boundary conditions 
(where sub address spaces should modulo wrap) that make the MIPS case 
look trivial :-)

As with the MIPS, and as you note, it turns out that these boundary 
cases are sufficiently rare to not need an urgent fix.

enjoy,
Andrew