From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8123 invoked by alias); 29 Jun 2004 19:14:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact sid-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: sid-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 8033 invoked from network); 29 Jun 2004 19:14:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 29 Jun 2004 19:14:19 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i5TJEIe1027721 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 15:14:18 -0400 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5TJEHw05193 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 15:14:17 -0400 Received: from redhat.com (to-dhcp15.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.115]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5TJEFP14095; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 12:14:16 -0700 Message-ID: <40E1BEF2.4070401@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 19:14:00 -0000 From: Dave Brolley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" CC: sid@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Misaligned read/write of memory by GDB References: <40E08B13.7000404@redhat.com> <40E0A0B0.3020001@redhat.com> <20040629182721.GK10148@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20040629182721.GK10148@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-q2/txt/msg00056.txt.bz2 Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: >OK, but did you consider an alternate of having a memory target that >is unable to handle an unaligned access return sid::bus::misaligned, >and then have gdb back down to byte-by-byte access? > > I thought about the possibility of fixing existing memory targets to handle misaligned access, either by implementing support, returning sid::bus::misaligned, or whatever else might be appropriate. However it occurred to me that this would require implementors of all future memory targets to be aware of potential GDB access of this type. This just seemed like something that will always work regardless of the implementation of the downstream memory. Dave