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]

Re: [patch] Cut memory address width

From: Jim Blandy <jimb at codesourcery dot com>
To: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
Cc: Michael Snyder <Michael dot Snyder at palmsource dot com>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:20:32 -0700
Subject: Re: [patch] Cut memory address width
References: <20060927161501.GA23340@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <1159381222.9768.43.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060927182211.GB5635@nevyn.them.org> <20060927183716.GA13279@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20060927185544.GA6821@nevyn.them.org>

Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 08:37:16PM +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
>> In such case `paddress' should print full 64-bit addresses.
>> Currently it is weird as it refuses to access memory while it will show you
>> that you were accessing 0xffffce70 - the already cut form - it lies.
>
> Yes, I'm inclined to agree with this.  I've encountered it a time or
> two, mostly while working on MIPS64, and it's really bewildering!
> If we have garbage in the high bits, that's a problem already.
>
> I don't know what else would break but unless someone else does, I
> think we should change paddress to print what it's got.

Definitely.  Having paddress "fix" things adds insult to injury.  :)

References:
- [patch] Cut memory address width
  - From: Jan Kratochvil
- Re: [patch] Cut memory address width
  - From: Michael Snyder
- Re: [patch] Cut memory address width
  - From: Daniel Jacobowitz
- Re: [patch] Cut memory address width
  - From: Jan Kratochvil
- Re: [patch] Cut memory address width
  - From: Daniel Jacobowitz

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]