This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Signed vs. unsigned adresses in solib-svr4
- From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb at redhat dot com>
- To: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 23:57:14 -0700
- Subject: Re: Signed vs. unsigned adresses in solib-svr4
- References: <je8xdi33ar.fsf@sykes.suse.de> <20070327192144.GK28164@caradoc.them.org> <je4po630c8.fsf@sykes.suse.de> <20070327203551.GA22750@caradoc.them.org> <jehcs45lfn.fsf@sykes.suse.de> <20070329175607.GB28418@caradoc.them.org>
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:56:07 -0400
Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 01:38:36PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> writes:
> >
> > > On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 10:20:23PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > >> > - since I know that the assumption is wrong for MIPS. Isn't there an
> > >> > extract_address or something like that which would be suitable?
> > >>
> > >> There is extract_typed_address, but I don't know how to construct the
> > >> struct type that it needs.
> > >
> > > Probably builtin_type_void_data_ptr is all you need.
> >
> > How about this then? Regtestest on
> > {i386,ia64,ppc,ppc64,s390,s390x,x86_64}-linux.
>
> Looks good to me. Kevin, what do you think?
I like it.
Andreas, please commit this patch.
Thanks,
Kevin