Defining address's offset.

Liza Atkin
Wed Feb 9 18:10:00 GMT 2005

Thank you for your advice and I'll take it to my notice.

	But the main thing is that I followed your advice concerning the
UNITS_PER_WORD definition and it did not have any influence whatsoever
on addresses' indexation and I thought maybe you could think of additional
components that influence the offset.

   Thank you,

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Lance Taylor []
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 4:18 PM
To: Liza Atkin
Cc: Gcc-Help-FAQ
Subject: Re: Defining address's offset.

"Liza Atkin" <> writes:

> 	I defined UNITS_PER_WORD as 1, but that alone did not change a thing as
> as I could see.
> When I tried to define BITS_PER_UNIT as 32 it thown me out with
> fault and I can't
> track the reason for it.
> 	My porting is based on arc's and in arc it has the same effect
> (Segmentation fault when BITS_PER_UNIT
> defined as 32), so you can see the exact situation there.

I'm sorry, I don't have time to do this sort of remote debugging.  You
are going to have to track down the proximate cause yourself.  If you
can identify the code that is causing the segmentation violation, we
may be able to offer some advice.  For that, I recommend using the
mailing list rather than  But
nobody will be able to help with a vague error report like a
segmentation fault somewhere in the code.

I want to caution you that porting gcc to a new target is a difficult
task for experienced programmers.  Porting to a system with
non-standard addressing, as you are doing, is even more difficult.
You are going to run into many problems like this.  While people on
the mailing list can offer suggestions, ultimately you must be
prepared to deal with them yourself.  I'll also note that there are
several companies who would be happy to sell you their gcc porting
services.  They are experts, but of course they are also expensive.


More information about the Gcc-help mailing list