print-address.patch
Doug Evans
dje@transmeta.com
Wed Feb 7 23:22:00 GMT 2001
The comment in print_address_numeric claims it's casting the address
to the size of [TARGET_]PTR_BIT (which sounds correct to me),
when in fact it's using TARGET_ADDR_BIT.
2001-02-07 Doug Evans <dje@casey.transmeta.com>
* printcmd.c (print_address_numeric): Reduce address to
size of TARGET_PTR_BIT, not TARGET_ADDR_BIT.
*** printcmd.c.~1~ Tue Dec 19 00:40:47 2000
--- printcmd.c Wed Feb 7 23:16:58 2001
*************** print_address_numeric (CORE_ADDR addr, i
*** 726,734 ****
kept in the least significant bits of ADDR - the upper bits were
either zero or sign extended. Should ADDRESS_TO_POINTER() or
some ADDRESS_TO_PRINTABLE() be used to do the conversion? */
! int addr_bit = TARGET_ADDR_BIT;
! if (addr_bit < (sizeof (CORE_ADDR) * HOST_CHAR_BIT))
! addr &= ((CORE_ADDR) 1 << addr_bit) - 1;
print_longest (stream, 'x', use_local, (ULONGEST) addr);
}
--- 726,734 ----
kept in the least significant bits of ADDR - the upper bits were
either zero or sign extended. Should ADDRESS_TO_POINTER() or
some ADDRESS_TO_PRINTABLE() be used to do the conversion? */
! int ptr_bit = TARGET_PTR_BIT;
! if (ptr_bit < (sizeof (CORE_ADDR) * HOST_CHAR_BIT))
! addr &= ((CORE_ADDR) 1 << ptr_bit) - 1;
print_longest (stream, 'x', use_local, (ULONGEST) addr);
}
More information about the Gdb-patches
mailing list