"Wright, David" wrote: > Hi Dave, > > This seemed like the perfect opportunity to ask if this proves > there might be a market for my cross-compilation additions to > crash. > Maybe you and the MontaVista guys could get together and come up with a common cross-compilation plan. > > Not the byte-swapping stuff. The lack of hosannas from your > end has caused me to tearfully conclude that I didn't make the > cut. > > So let me propose a couple of things: > > 1) How about if I just submit my diffs that allowed for > cross-compilation of the x86 version on a 64-bit platform? > Plus any bug fixes or other minor amendations I had? > I guess I missed that part. I thought the patch was only for supporting the MIPS 4000 on a 32-bit x86 platform? If you're only talking about supporting x86 on x86_64, why bother? > > 2) I might have a better solution to this whole "how to do > byte-swapping, where needed, without confusing everything > in sight?" A partial solution, anyway. > > The model would be based on the difference between malloc > and calloc calling sequences. With malloc, you just specify > the length you want. With calloc, you specify a number of > items and the length of each item. > > We could have a readmem variant that incorporates the calloc > style. Don't specify a length, specify an item count and an > item length. Then the byte swappers could hook into this, > but ordinary code would still do a readmem-style thing. > Would this be any better? > I suppose you could encode a whole bunch of stuff into the current readmem()'s "error_handle" flag. It only uses 3 bits now, and it seems that there would only be a need for one readmem(), which could do all manner of different things based upon the byte-swapping or whatever flags, all of which could be conditionally no-op flags for non-cross-compiled versions. Dave -- Crash-utility mailing list Crash-utility@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
