This is the mail archive of the
gdb-prs@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
gdb/522: Is BITS_BIG_ENDIAN needed?
- From: ac131313 at redhat dot com
- To: gdb-gnats at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: 3 May 2002 16:28:19 -0000
- Subject: gdb/522: Is BITS_BIG_ENDIAN needed?
- Reply-to: ac131313 at redhat dot com
>Number: 522
>Category: gdb
>Synopsis: Is BITS_BIG_ENDIAN needed?
>Confidential: no
>Severity: serious
>Priority: medium
>Responsible: unassigned
>State: open
>Class: change-request
>Submitter-Id: net
>Arrival-Date: Fri May 03 09:38:00 PDT 2002
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator: ac131313@redhat.com
>Release: unknown-1.0
>Organization:
>Environment:
>Description:
At present BITS_BIG_ENDIAN is only defined as (TARGET_BYTE_ORDER == BIG_ENDIAN). This is wiered as a big-endian PPC is BITS_BIG_ENDIAN (MSB is number 0) yet a MIPS isn't (MSB is 32/64).
Looking at the code, it appears that this macro may at somestage have the meaning implied by the name but over time either the meaning was lost or the code has suffered bit(groan) rot.
>How-To-Repeat:
>Fix:
>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted: