From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16884 invoked by alias); 6 Aug 2007 18:24:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 16651 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Aug 2007 18:24:38 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from an-out-0708.google.com (HELO an-out-0708.google.com) (209.85.132.251) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:24:33 +0000 Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id c23so295859anc for ; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 11:24:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.165.9 with SMTP id n9mr3327474ane.1186424671586; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 11:24:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.127.9 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 11:24:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:24:00 -0000 From: "Vinod pandarinathan" To: "Vinod pandarinathan" , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: MIPS 64 bit addressing query In-Reply-To: <20070806015122.GA29212@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070806015122.GA29212@caradoc.them.org> 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 X-SW-Source: 2007-08/txt/msg00057.txt.bz2 Hi, Thanks for the quick reply. I upgraded the debugger to gdb6.6 but still seeing the same problem. I searched the newsgroup and found a related thread http://www.ecos.sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2006-10/msg00088.html I checked mips-tdep.c where the function set_gdbarch_integer_to_address uses mips_integer_to_address which sign extends the 32 bit value. From the above thread it is suggested to use unsigned integer extension. However I am still trying to find where the zero extended address[bpt->address] is coming from. Thank you Vinod. On 8/5/07, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Sun, Aug 05, 2007 at 05:57:36PM -0700, Vinod pandarinathan wrote: > > We are using MIPS 3 ISA and since breakpoint is set at an address > > where the 32nd bit is set to 1 the 64 bit sign extended values does > > not compare with the unsigned > > break point address. > > > > Can you please explain how we can fix the problem? Should I sign > > extend the break point address too ? > > Wherever you got the zero extended address, there's the bug. All > addresses should be sign extended when working with the MIPS target, > even most of the ones from the command line. > > As David said, I suggest you upgrade before you try modifying GDB. > > -- > Daniel Jacobowitz > CodeSourcery >