[patch rfc] store_address -> store_unsigned_integer

[Andrew Cagney]

Hello,

This patch replaces store_address() with store_unsigned_integer().  A 
follow on patch would replace extract_address() with 
extract_unsigned_integer().

Why?

Because both extract_address() and store_address() are misnomers.  On 
the MIPS and any d10v like harvard architecture they do not and cannot 
do what they claim.  If the code really needs to extract or store an 
address then the recently added:
	extract_typed_address()
	store_typed_address()
methods need be used (and core GDB does this).

Baring comment (...), I'll look to commit this in a few days (and then 
follow up with the corresponding extract_address patch).

Andrew
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: diffs
URL: <http://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/attachments/20030510/0cd6c8d5/attachment.ksh>