This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: MIPS sign extension of addresses
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at ges dot redhat dot com>
- Cc: Fred Fish <fnf at intrinsity dot com>,"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro at ds2 dot pg dot gda dot pl>,binutils at sources dot redhat dot com, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 11:30:00 -0400
- Subject: Re: MIPS sign extension of addresses
- References: <200209121449.g8CEnmL09055@beeville.vert.intrinsity.com> <3D80B08E.6050001@ges.redhat.com>
On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 11:19:42AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >> Well, that seems the reason of the trouble -- for MIPS addresses in
> >>object and executable files should be treated as signed and bfd_vma should
> >>be a signed type since that's how MIPS works.
> >
> >
> >So does that mean that it would be more desirable if the MIPS ports used
> >signed long long for bfd_vma/CORE_ADDR instead of unsigned long long?
> >
> >I'm willing to work on making that happen if that is the consensus for
> >making MIPS support more consistent with how the hardware works.
> >
> >I've not yet checked, but are there fundamental reasons why bfd_vma
> >or CORE_ADDR have to be unsigned?
>
> I don't think it will help. I think it will also hinder the situtation
> where BFD/GDB are supporting multiple architectures - one signed and one
> unsigned.
Oh, Andrew's right. Signed CORE_ADDR isn't viable because other
architectures have and assume an unsigned address space.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer