This is the mail archive of the 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 2/7] Move some integer operations to common.

On 09/23/2015 04:40 PM, Doug Evans wrote:

  > It would also introduce a bfd version dependency in common code to
  > for this static header. And it could be quite an ugly #ifdef changing
  > ints to enum in case the header is present.

This is a non-issue.  gdb always uses bfd HEAD, and in general
we don't support uses of bfd outside of binutils and gdb.

Ok thanks, good to know.

  > One thing to consider too is that this patchset has now changed a bit
  > and this enum is no longer used in GDBServer itself at all.

I'm less interested in whether the enum is used in gdbserver than
whether it is used in the common code (and thus by extension
it still matters what gdbserver uses).

Humm I think this will become more clear when I post the updated pathset, I suggest we restart this point when I do that if needed.

We *could* just use a bool, is_big_endian or is_little_endian.
The code today assumes it never sees BFD_ENDIAN_UNKNOWN,
which would be nice to fix.
Or we could invent a new enum that just has big/little endian.

Given that BFD_ENDIAN_UNKNOWN is used in a few places in GDB I would move to fix the functions where it's not taken into consideration and should be... but it can be part of another patch set.

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