for pointers to char, in which the low bits *are* significant. */
return ADDR_BITS_REMOVE (value_as_long (val));
#else
+
+ /* There are several targets (IA-64, PowerPC, and others) which
+ don't represent pointers to functions as simply the address of
+ the function's entry point. For example, on the IA-64, a
+ function pointer points to a two-word descriptor, generated by
+ the linker, which contains the function's entry point, and the
+ value the IA-64 "global pointer" register should have --- to
+ support position-independent code. The linker generates
+ descriptors only for those functions whose addresses are taken.
+
+ On such targets, it's difficult for GDB to convert an arbitrary
+ function address into a function pointer; it has to either find
+ an existing descriptor for that function, or call malloc and
+ build its own. On some targets, it is impossible for GDB to
+ build a descriptor at all: the descriptor must contain a jump
+ instruction; data memory cannot be executed; and code memory
+ cannot be modified.
+
+ Upon entry to this function, if VAL is a value of type `function'
+ (that is, TYPE_CODE (VALUE_TYPE (val)) == TYPE_CODE_FUNC), then
+ VALUE_ADDRESS (val) is the address of the function. This is what
+ you'll get if you evaluate an expression like `main'. The call
+ to COERCE_ARRAY below actually does all the usual unary
+ conversions, which includes converting values of type `function'
+ to `pointer to function'. This is the challenging conversion
+ discussed above. Then, `unpack_long' will convert that pointer
+ back into an address.
+
+ So, suppose the user types `disassemble foo' on an architecture
+ with a strange function pointer representation, on which GDB
+ cannot build its own descriptors, and suppose further that `foo'
+ has no linker-built descriptor. The address->pointer conversion
+ will signal an error and prevent the command from running, even
+ though the next step would have been to convert the pointer
+ directly back into the same address.
+
+ The following shortcut avoids this whole mess. If VAL is a
+ function, just return its address directly. */
+ if (TYPE_CODE (VALUE_TYPE (val)) == TYPE_CODE_FUNC
+ || TYPE_CODE (VALUE_TYPE (val)) == TYPE_CODE_METHOD)
+ return VALUE_ADDRESS (val);
+
COERCE_ARRAY (val);
/* Some architectures (e.g. Harvard), map instruction and data