This is the mail archive of the
gdb-prs@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
[Bug tdep/7627] Is gdbarch_bits_big_endian needed?
- From: "pedro at codesourcery dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla at sourceware dot org>
- To: gdb-prs at sourceware dot org
- Date: 2 Jun 2010 21:49:33 -0000
- Subject: [Bug tdep/7627] Is gdbarch_bits_big_endian needed?
- References: <20020503093800.7627.ac131313@redhat.com>
- Reply-to: sourceware-bugzilla at sourceware dot org
------- Additional Comments From pedro at codesourcery dot com 2010-06-02 21:49 -------
The question is still valid. The macro was just converted to a gdbarch callback
as part of the current_gdbarch global elimination work. Changing title.
There's no target calling set_gdbarch_bits_big_endian, and the default is the
same as what the old macro did.
# The bit byte-order has to do just with numbering of bits in debugging symbols
# and such. Conceptually, it's quite separate from byte/word byte order.
v:int:bits_big_endian:::1:(gdbarch->byte_order == BFD_ENDIAN_BIG)::0
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED |
Summary|Is BITS_BIG_ENDIAN needed? |Is gdbarch_bits_big_endian
| |needed?
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7627
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.