This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
RE: [RFC] h8300 "info registers" fix
Grumble -- is the regcache kept in host order, or target order?
I can never remember. Anyway, good call. The read is done using
a gdb_byte[4], while the write is done using an unsigned long.
Surely they can't both be correct -- it should be one or the other.
Besides, a host unsigned long can't be right, 'cause we don't
even know what size it is.
-----Original Message-----
From: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org on behalf of Daniel Jacobowitz
Sent: Wed 9/13/2006 1:09 PM
To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] h8300 "info registers" fix
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 01:00:17PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote:
>
> At Wed, 13 Sep 2006 00:04:58 +0900,
> Yoshinori Sato wrote:
> > I modified it in technique to think that I was appropriate.
>
> OK, much better. Just one more question.
>
> Your change to h8300_pseudo_register_read (and write): is it because
> someone is calling the function with a one-byte buffer? I assume so,
> but who is making that call?
I'm not familiar with this target, but are there host endianness
problems with this patch? Casting an unsigned long * pointer to
a gdb_byte * pointer is very suspicious.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery