This is the mail archive of the gdb@sources.redhat.com 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: MIPS sign extension of addresses


On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:


> >I've not yet checked, but are there fundamental reasons why bfd_vma
> >or CORE_ADDR have to be unsigned?

> > I don't think it will help. I think it will also hinder the situtation > where BFD/GDB are supporting multiple architectures - one signed and one > unsigned.

Oh, Andrew's right.  Signed CORE_ADDR isn't viable because other
architectures have and assume an unsigned address space.

 Because MIPS is a minority?
Actually no. GDB supports pure harvard architectures (non-unified instruction and data spaces). Such targets have boundary conditions (where sub address spaces should modulo wrap) that make the MIPS case look trivial :-)

As with the MIPS, and as you note, it turns out that these boundary cases are sufficiently rare to not need an urgent fix.

enjoy,
Andrew



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