Re: 8-byte register values on a 32-bit machine

Andrew Cagney
2003-03-12T18:38:42Z

> On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 01:29:03PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
>> >
>> >The new code fixes some reported wrong-value-reported bugs in other
>> >debugging
>> >situations; one of them was reported just recently. So I don't think
>> >'equalled the functionality of the old mechanism' is really quite fair.
>
>>
>> True. However, breaking `long long' is a serious regression. If a
>> developer can't trust that, what can they trust?
>
>
> Historically it hasn't been all that trustable anyway. I don't have a
> testcase handy but CORE_ADDRs in GDB backtraces tend to be wrong, even
> when they're properly saved to the stack. Et cetera.

On the i386. The case that Mark identified.

Andrew