[RFA:] sim-config.c: When having a bfd, don't just check bfd_little_endian
Andrew Cagney
cagney@gnu.org
Tue Nov 16 16:16:00 GMT 2004
Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
>>Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:11:56 -0500
>>From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
>
>
>>>Index: sim-config.c
>>>===================================================================
>>>RCS file: /cvs/src/src/sim/common/sim-config.c,v
>>>retrieving revision 1.2
>>>diff -c -p -r1.2 sim-config.c
>>>*** sim-config.c 23 Nov 2002 01:12:05 -0000 1.2
>>>--- sim-config.c 9 Nov 2004 19:41:07 -0000
>>>*************** sim_config (SIM_DESC sd)
>>>*** 146,152 ****
>>> SIM_ASSERT (STATE_MAGIC (sd) == SIM_MAGIC_NUMBER);
>>>
>>> /* extract all relevant information */
>>>! if (STATE_PROG_BFD (sd) == NULL)
>>> prefered_target_byte_order = 0;
>>> else
>>> prefered_target_byte_order = (bfd_little_endian(STATE_PROG_BFD (sd))
>>>--- 146,156 ----
>>> SIM_ASSERT (STATE_MAGIC (sd) == SIM_MAGIC_NUMBER);
>>>
>>> /* extract all relevant information */
>>>! if (STATE_PROG_BFD (sd) == NULL
>>>! /* If we have a binary input file (presumably with specified
>>>! "--architecture"), it'll have no endianness. */
>>>! || (!bfd_little_endian (STATE_PROG_BFD (sd))
>>>! && !bfd_big_endian (STATE_PROG_BFD (sd))))
>>
>>Yes, although this three way case better expressed using a switch.
>
>
> Not one I see, not without looking at bfd private data
> abfd->xvec->byteorder or introducing a multi-valued accessor for
> the bfd endian data or expressing it awkwardly along the lines of:
> switch (2 * (bfd_little_endian (STATE_PROG_BFD (sd) != false))
> + (bfd_big_endian (STATE_PROG_BFD (sd) != false)))
> ...
Ah, GDB exposes all three states, BFD doesn't :-/ Never mind.
Andrew
>>Change it before committing if you care.
>
>
> Since you made it optional I committed as-is; I didn't see an
> obvious and simple way to better express it as a switch.
>
> brgds, H-P
>
More information about the Gdb-patches
mailing list