This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 11:29:14AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>The others were all warnings. Two are dead fix_call_dummy's, one is a >printf format string warning (sizeof is size_t, which is not necessarily >long), and three are long 64-bit constants without suffixes. The last I'm >least sure about. ia64-tdep.c already used the LL suffix, but alpha-tdep.c >and amd64-tdep.c didn't. I'm slightly worried that a native Alpha (Compaq) >compiler will complain about the LL syntax (since CORE_ADDR may be just a >long in that case, and I remember Compaq's compiler as being remarkably >pedantic). Joel (or someone else), I don't suppose you could test this >patch by building GDB on OSF/1?
There must be something in src/include to portably handle `LL' - what does bfd do? It isn't ISO-C '90.
Only elfxx-ia64.c and opcode/d30v.h (and related files in opcodes/) use long long constants; everything else seems to avoid needing them, as far as I can tell. I could decompose most of them into shifts and casts to CORE_ADDR instead if you think it's worth it.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |