This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On 14/03/15 11:23, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On 14 Mar 2015 10:23, Jiri Gaisler wrote: >> On 14/03/15 08:45, Mike Frysinger wrote: >>> On 13 Mar 2015 09:24, Jiri Gaisler wrote: >>>> On 13/03/15 00:55, Mike Frysinger wrote: >>>>> On 12 Mar 2015 22:25, Jiri Gaisler wrote: >>>>>> On 02/03/15 02:13, Mike Frysinger wrote: >>>>>>>> +#ifdef HOST_LITTLE_ENDIAN >>>>>>>>> + for (i = 0; i < (count / 4); i++) wbuffer[i] = ntohl(wbuffer[i]); // endian swap >>>>>>>>> +#endif >>>>>>> >>>>>>> sim-endian.h already provides a lot of helper funcs that i'm pretty sure you >>>>>>> can use here. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't understand why ntohl() is a problem. It is a common Posix function >>>>>> that converts big endian to host endian, exactly what is needed. Using >>>>>> sim-endian.h pulls in a lot of the sim-*.c files due to dependencies and >>>>>> makes the simulator larger than necessary .... >>>>> >>>>> "network" has no meaning here. using it as a proxy for moving between big >>>>> endian and native endian when there are clear functions that the sim has >>>>> standardized on isn't correct. your code also (1) requires duplicating branches >>>>> and (2) inline preprocessor checks. it also does not properly handle bi-endian >>>>> builds. sim-endian does all of these for you. the whole point of common/ is >>>>> to delete code from each sim rather than open coding it everywhere. >>>>> >>>>> wrt size, i don't think that's a compelling argument. we're talking units of >>>>> KiB here, and i can't even count that low :P. >>>>> >>>>> if you're having trouble converting the build over (compiling/linking errors), >>>>> then we can discuss that. but it'd be a matter of "do we do it now or later" >>>>> rather than "do we do ever convert". >>>> >>>> Right. I tried to use the T2H_4 macro, but can't get it to compile. >>>> I included <sim-basics.h> and added sim-endian.o and sim-io.o to the >>>> Makefile, but it complains about unresolved function etc. Do I really >>>> need to create a sim-main.c and sim-main.h just to use T2H? >>> >>> i've pushed a patch to bury the sim-io.h include in sim-assert.h (since that's >>> the header that actually uses the sim_io_xxx funcs). if you define your own >>> ASSERT/SIM_ASSERT macros, it should be avoided for now. just make sure you add >>> a note that they should get converted to sim-assert.h at some point. >> >> I'm not sure this helps. sim-endian.c includes sim-assert.h, so I get the >> same problem even after your patch: >> >> gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DPROFILE=1 -DWITH_PROFILE=-1 -DWITH_HOST_BYTE_ORDER=LITTLE_ENDIAN -DDEFAULT_INLINE=0 -DFAST_UART -I../../../../../ibm/src/gdb/binutils-gdb/sim/erc32/../.. -I. -I../../../../../ibm/src/gdb/binutils-gdb/sim/erc32 -I../common >> -I../../../../../ibm/src/gdb/binutils-gdb/sim/erc32/../common -I../../include -I../../../../../ibm/src/gdb/binutils-gdb/sim/erc32/../../include -I../../bfd -I../../../../../ibm/src/gdb/binutils-gdb/sim/erc32/../../bfd -I../../opcodes >> -I../../../../../ibm/src/gdb/binutils-gdb/sim/erc32/../../opcodes -g -O2 -static-libstdc++ -static-libgcc -o run \ >> run.o libsim.a ../../bfd/libbfd.a ../../opcodes/libopcodes.a ../../libiberty/libiberty.a -ltermcap -ldl -lz -lnsl ../../readline/libreadline.a -ltermcap -lm >> libsim.a(sim-endian.o): In function `offset_1': >> /home/jiri/src/gdb/v4/sim/erc32/../../../../../ibm/src/gdb/binutils-gdb/sim/erc32/../common/sim-n-endian.h:145: undefined reference to `sim_io_error' > > did you define ASSERT/SIM_ASSERT before including sim-endian.h ? No, I included sim-basic.h in my code. Including sim-endian.h only will not work due to dependencies on other include files. I don't see how this will change how sim-endian.o is built though, as it is compiled separately. I did manage to compile the code by including sim-endian.c directly into my own code (func.c) rather then building it separately: #include <sim-assert.h> #undef ASSERT #define ASSERT(x) if (0) {} #include <sim-endian.c> Is this acceptable ...? Jiri.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |