From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28114 invoked by alias); 15 Jul 2004 18:35:46 -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 28106 invoked from network); 15 Jul 2004 18:35:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 15 Jul 2004 18:35:46 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i6FIZje3013197 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:35:45 -0400 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (to-dhcp51.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.151]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i6FIZj007642; Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:35:45 -0400 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 164322B9D; Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:35:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <40F6CE82.5040106@gnu.org> Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 18:45:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040217 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Martin M. Hunt" Cc: Mark Kettenis , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: dwarf2-frame.c question for maintainers References: <1089749730.3026.18.camel@dragon> <40F56CCA.5080106@gnu.org> <1089827266.3010.2.camel@dragon> <40F58971.7000304@gnu.org> <1089912741.3028.14.camel@dragon> <40F6C5C3.3040302@gnu.org> <1089915300.3028.19.camel@dragon> In-Reply-To: <1089915300.3028.19.camel@dragon> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-07/txt/msg00176.txt.bz2 >>> Consider o32. Both the ABI and ISA are 32-bits, but GDB's CORE_ADDR may >>> be 64-bits. Even if it doesn't appear to make a difference, the MIPS >>> needs to always sign extend addresses/registers - that's the dogma :-) > > > Right. And so back to the original question. What is the best way to > have read_reg detect if it should sign-extend? We agreed that passing a > pointer to the CU was out, as was using a global. Do I need to add > something to gdbarch? Hmm, the architecture vector already has POINTER_TO_ADDRESS and register_type that can be used to extract [signed] pointers and registers. Can either of those be used here? Andrew