Joeri van Ruth wrote:
> However, I assume that if the DWARF standard were explicit about the
> size of a byte, it would define a byte to be 8 bits.
As Michael said, if DWARF were to say anything more than it does, it
should be in terms of memory-addressable units; although finding specific
wordi
> "Michael" == Michael Eager writes:
Michael> Gdb has the definition TARGET_CHAR_BIT which defines the number of
Michael> bits in a char (aka byte) on the target architecture. It may not
Michael> be taking this into account with address arithmetic or memory access.
My impression is that TAR
On 07/26/2012 12:29 PM, Robinson, Paul wrote:
Michael Eager wrote:
Word-oriented platforms which have byte-addressable memory seems be a
self-contradiction.
The PDP-10 (my first machine) was a 36-bit word-addressable machine.
It had a "byte pointer" format that could specify an arbitrary b
-Discuss] DWARF on systems where memory is not byte
addressable
Joeri van Ruth wrote:
> Hello all, I am wondering about how to deal with platforms with word
> memories, by which I mean that the smallest addressable unit in memory
> is (in our current case) 32 bits wide. This means that
I don't really work in this area anymore, but I can wave my
hands around with the best of them, so here's my two cents.
It sounds like you are asking this question:
Is it easier to teach gdb that a byte is 32-bits long, or is it
easier to teach gdb that pointers are always missing their bottom
t
On 07/25/2012 10:45 PM, Joeri van Ruth wrote:
Hello all, I am wondering about how to deal with platforms with word
memories, by which I mean that the smallest addressable unit in memory
is (in our current case) 32 bits wide. This means that at the C level,
sizeof(char) == sizeof(short)
Hello all, I am wondering about how to deal with platforms with word
memories, by which I mean that the smallest addressable unit in memory
is (in our current case) 32 bits wide. This means that at the C level,
sizeof(char) == sizeof(short) == sizeof(int) == 1,
so far so good. However,
