[Bug tdep/7627] Is BITS_BIG_ENDIAN needed?

[Bug tdep/7627] Is BITS_BIG_ENDIAN needed?

[tromey at redhat dot com]

------- Additional Comments From tromey at redhat dot com  2010-06-02 20:53 -------
BITS_BIG_ENDIAN was removed.
There is still a gdbarch setting, but it appears to be ok.


-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED
   Target Milestone|---                         |7.1


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7627

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug tdep/7627] Is gdbarch_bits_big_endian needed?

[pedro at codesourcery dot com]

------- Additional Comments From pedro at codesourcery dot com  2010-06-02 21:49 -------
The question is still valid.  The macro was just converted to a gdbarch callback
as part of the current_gdbarch global elimination work.  Changing title.

There's no target calling set_gdbarch_bits_big_endian, and the default is the
same as what the old macro did.

# The bit byte-order has to do just with numbering of bits in debugging symbols
# and such.  Conceptually, it's quite separate from byte/word byte order.
v:int:bits_big_endian:::1:(gdbarch->byte_order == BFD_ENDIAN_BIG)::0


-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|FIXED                       |
            Summary|Is BITS_BIG_ENDIAN needed?  |Is gdbarch_bits_big_endian
                   |                            |needed?


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7627

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug tdep/7627] Is gdbarch_bits_big_endian needed?

[tromey at redhat dot com]

------- Additional Comments From tromey at redhat dot com  2010-06-03 16:03 -------
I should have linked to the discussion:

http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2010-05/msg00445.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2010-05/msg00503.html

Apparently there do exist some machines which are byte-little-endian
but bit-big-endian; see the first link.  GDB doesn't support any such
arch at present, but it seems to me that the distinction
is worth having as long as such machines exist.

-- 


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7627

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug tdep/7627] Is gdbarch_bits_big_endian needed?

[pedro at codesourcery dot com]

------- Additional Comments From pedro at codesourcery dot com  2010-06-03 16:26 -------
Agreed, thanks for the pointers.  We can now point people here if the question
arises again.


-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|REOPENED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7627

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug tdep/7627] Is gdbarch_bits_big_endian needed?

[tromey at redhat dot com]

------- Additional Comments From tromey at redhat dot com  2010-06-03 17:12 -------
BTW, I asked on #gcc and Ian said:

<iant> On ARM bits are always little-endian, but bytes are configurable
<iant> on MIPS bits are always little-endian but bytes are usually big-endian
       (though again configurable)

It is a little surprising to me that none of these cases have ever
been reported as gdb bugs.

-- 


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7627

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.