From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 35310 invoked by alias); 22 Oct 2015 19:23:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 35299 invoked by uid 89); 22 Oct 2015 19:23:25 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: ausc60pc101.us.dell.com Received: from ausc60pc101.us.dell.com (HELO ausc60pc101.us.dell.com) (143.166.85.206) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (CAMELLIA256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 19:23:24 +0000 X-LoopCount0: from 10.170.28.41 From: To: CC: Subject: Re: endianness handling inside gdb Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 19:23:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-10/txt/msg00093.txt.bz2 > On Oct 22, 2015, at 3:01 PM, Ashutosh wrote: >=20 > Hi Experts, >=20 > Does gdb handles the case where endianness of the ELF file is > different from the endianness of the target processor?=20 That doesn't make any sense. The executable file (I assume that's what you= 're talking about) is built for the byte order being used. A processor can= only execute code that matches the byte order it's using. Either because = that's the way the processor is configured, or because it has selectable or= der and this particular process has selected that order. But a mismatch be= tween processor and executable file byte order doesn't make any more sense = than, say, trying to debug on an x86 processor using a MIPS binary. paul