Re: long long considered harmful?

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>]

On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 06:09:40PM -0400, Kris Warkentin wrote:
> > I'd have to see exactly what you meant, but probably not.  These things
> > have to be an exact size, right?  Barring wackiness like the 32-bit
> > char platforms, which I shouldn't have brought into this.  So if you
> > run on a host with 64-bit "int", it will be wrong.
> 
> It just has to be AT LEAST a certain size.  If I have:
> 
> typedef struct x86_cpu_registers
> {
>   unsigned edi, esi, ebp, exx, ebx, edx, ecx, eax;
>   unsigned eip, cs, efl;
>   unsigned esp, ss;
> } X86_CPU_REGISTERS;
> 
> typedef union _debug_gregs
> {
>   ARM_CPU_REGISTERS arm;
>   ...
>   X86_CPU_REGISTERS x86;
>   qnx_reg64 padding[1024];
> } nto_gregset_t;
> 
> Then the padding guarantees a minimum size.  If I then calculate edi, esi,
> etc.
> using char offsets, the way the compiler creates the structure is completely
> irrelevant.  The only reason for the structure is to maintain visible
> compatability with our system headers.

At that point, the entire contents of this header (for GDB's purposes)
could be:
typedef union _debug_gregs
{
  qnx_reg64 padding[1024];
};

Right?

If so, honestly I don't see the point of including it in GDB at all.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer