This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCHv5] aarch64: detect atomic sequences like other ll/sc architectures
- From: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gmail dot com>
- To: Kyle McMartin <kmcmarti at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>, "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 09:41:24 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCHv5] aarch64: detect atomic sequences like other ll/sc architectures
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140424183510 dot GI7588 at redacted dot bos dot redhat dot com> <20140430160450 dot GE2148 at redacted dot bos dot redhat dot com> <20140507135217 dot GC4063 at adacore dot com> <20140507151022 dot GQ674 at redacted dot bos dot redhat dot com>
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Kyle McMartin <kmcmarti@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 06:52:17AM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote:
>> > + struct gdbarch *gdbarch = get_frame_arch (frame);
>> > + struct address_space *aspace = get_frame_address_space (frame);
>> > + enum bfd_endian byte_order_for_code = gdbarch_byte_order_for_code (gdbarch);
>>
>> AndrewP said that the code is always LE, so why not just use
>> BFD_ENDIAN_LITTLE in this case, rather than go through
>> byte_order_for_code?
>>
>
> Seemed sensible to do what aarch64_analyze_prologue did, rather than
> hard code it... I'm happy one way or another though.
I think it is clearer if we used byte_order_for_code rather than hard
coding it to little-endian.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
>
> regards, Kyle