From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22506 invoked by alias); 13 Sep 2002 18:26:53 -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 22492 invoked from network); 13 Sep 2002 18:26:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Sep 2002 18:26:52 -0000 Received: from ges.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5F373C96; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 14:26:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D822DE9.1080308@ges.redhat.com> Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 11:26:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020824 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , Fred Fish , binutils@sources.redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: MIPS sign extension of addresses References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00160.txt.bz2 > 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