This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] arm_extract_return_value, big-endian
- From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>
- To: Michael Snyder <msnyder at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com, Fernando Nasser <fnasser at redhat dot com>, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com, rearnsha at arm dot com, cagney at redhat dot com, kevinb at redhat dot com, fnasser <fnasser at tooth dot toronto dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 09:47:47 +0000
- Subject: Re: [RFA] arm_extract_return_value, big-endian
- Organization: ARM Ltd.
- Reply-to: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
> Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > firstname.lastname@example.org said:
> > > Humm..., I am having second thoughts about this. Isn't the problem
> > > you are seeing the same problem of not having the values peoperly
> > > sign-extended?
> > No. In this case we really need to copy the least significant 1 (or 2)
> > bytes into the 1 or 2 bytes in the valbuf target. That means doing a copy
> > from the higher addresses. So in that respect, the patch is correct.
> > But it breaks the case where the return value is more than one word.
> Yes, I see that now. Richard, how about a joint effort?
> Would you be so kind as to fill in the empty else clause?
I think I've already fixed this. Did you miss my request that you test it
for me on a big-endian system?