From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20088 invoked by alias); 23 May 2012 08:19:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 20075 invoked by uid 22791); 23 May 2012 08:19:18 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_DNSBL_BUMP,KHOP_THREADED,MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL,RCVD_IN_JMF_BL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mailhost.u-strasbg.fr (HELO mailhost.u-strasbg.fr) (130.79.200.154) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 23 May 2012 08:19:05 +0000 Received: from md14.u-strasbg.fr (md14.u-strasbg.fr [130.79.200.249]) by mailhost.u-strasbg.fr (8.14.3/jtpda-5.5pre1) with ESMTP id q4N8J3In058326 ; Wed, 23 May 2012 10:19:03 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from pierre.muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr) Received: from mailserver.u-strasbg.fr (ms11.u-strasbg.fr [130.79.204.111]) by md14.u-strasbg.fr (8.14.3/jtpda-5.5pre1) with ESMTP id q4N8J2U2019910 ; Wed, 23 May 2012 10:19:02 +0200 Received: from E6510Muller (gw-ics.u-strasbg.fr [130.79.210.225]) (user=mullerp mech=LOGIN) by mailserver.u-strasbg.fr (8.14.3/jtpda-5.5pre1) with ESMTP id q4N8J2gO022647 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) ; Wed, 23 May 2012 10:19:02 +0200 (envelope-from pierre.muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr) From: "Pierre Muller" To: "'Doug Evans'" , References: <20120523015503.GA25312@sourceware.org> In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: New ARI warning Wed May 23 01:55:03 UTC 2012 Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 08:19:00 -0000 Message-ID: <003301cd38bc$b5603280$20209780$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-05/txt/msg00865.txt.bz2 As a possible ARI maintainer I would like to clarify things here: "long long" and "unsigned long long" are used in lots of native files, and they are=20 OK in those context. In fact, one of the improvements I have in mind is to restrain some ARI rules, like this one to GDB common files. This would mean that files that are only used for specific native targets would be allowed to use "long long" without generating a warning. The use of "long long" and "unsigned long long" is discouraged as it is not available in all C compilers if I understood the definitions in defs.h around line 112. Another possible use of LONGEST and ULONGEST=20 is also to be able to cope with 128-bit integers if these are used in GDB later. Pierre Muller > -----Message d'origine----- > De=A0: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org [mailto:gdb-patches- > owner@sourceware.org] De la part de Doug Evans > Envoy=E9=A0: mercredi 23 mai 2012 09:28 > =C0=A0: gdb-patches > Cc=A0: Sergio Durigan Junior > Objet=A0: Re: New ARI warning Wed May 23 01:55:03 UTC 2012 >=20 > Hmmm, there's more than a few uses of long long in gdb (not all > conditioned on CC_HAS_LONG_LONG, though most are in target files) and > gdbserver (I was pretty sure I checked at the time). >=20 > So is this ARI check outdated? >=20 > I'm happy to change the code as necessary. > If we can't use C++ can we at least use a modern C? 1/2 :-) >=20 > On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 12:10 AM, Doug Evans wrote: > > Well, blech. > > src/include/leb128.h uses long long per request, so that's what I used > here. > > src/include/anything obviously cannot use LONGEST/ULONGEST. > > > > Are long long's really verboten? > > > > I suppose I could create a gdb-leb128.h that used LONGEST/ULONGEST, > > but blech. > > > > > > On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Sergio Durigan Junior > > wrote: > >> WDYT about the following patch? =A0I would like you to take a look at = the > >> gdb/dwarf2expr.h's castings that I had to make in order to get the > >> compilation right.