On 05/09/2012 06:27 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
H8/300 cpus have a larger-than-64k address space, despite 16-bit
pointers. OK to apply? Ok for 4.7 branch?
See also http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48231
* config/h8300/h8300.h (DWARF2_ADDR_SIZE): Define as 4 bytes.
My recollection was that the H8/300 only had a 64k address space and
that the larger address spaces showed up in later processors (H8/300H).
Regardless, shouldn't DWARF2_ADDR_SIZE be POINTER_SIZE / BITS_PER_UNIT?
That'll give the larger DWARF2_ADDR_SIZE on the modern widgets, but
still do the right thing for the ancient H8/300.
My other relevant recollection was that we don't support C++ on the
H8/300 series.
jeff
