On Wed, 4 Dec 2024 at 20:28, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <[email protected]> wrote: > > Rather that using the binary endianness, use the vCPU one. > > Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <[email protected]> > --- > disas/disas-common.c | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/disas/disas-common.c b/disas/disas-common.c > index 7377de0715c..ef91c43449e 100644 > --- a/disas/disas-common.c > +++ b/disas/disas-common.c > @@ -7,7 +7,6 @@ > #include "disas/disas.h" > #include "disas/capstone.h" > #include "hw/core/cpu.h" > -#include "exec/tswap.h" > #include "disas-internal.h" > > > @@ -61,7 +60,7 @@ void disas_initialize_debug_target(CPUDebug *s, CPUState > *cpu) > > s->cpu = cpu; > s->info.print_address_func = print_address; > - if (qemu_binary_is_bigendian()) { > + if (cpu_datapath_is_big_endian(cpu)) { > s->info.endian = BFD_ENDIAN_BIG; > } else { > s->info.endian = BFD_ENDIAN_LITTLE; > --
This looks weird, but maybe that's just the function naming? Instruction disassembly is instructions, not data, and the endianness isn't necessarily the same (e.g. on Armv7 and later instructions are always little-endian even when data is big-endian.) -- PMM
