Re: [RFA] fix gdb.base/remote.c for small int targets

[Kevin Buettner <kevinb@cygnus.com>]

On Aug 31,  6:59pm, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> > > > +#if INT_MAX < 32768
> > > 
> > > Shouldn't you use 32768L or 32768U?  If an int is only 16 bits wide,
> > > 32768 might overflow into the sign bit, and then all bets are off.
> > 
> > Although not incorrect, using 32768L or 32768U is not necessary. 
> > According to section 7.11.1 of Harbison and Steele:
> 
> What version of the C standard is this from?

The book that I was quoting is the Fourth Edition of "C, a Reference
Manual" by Samuel P. Harbison and Guy L. Steele Jr.  Its copyright
is 1995 by Prentice Hall.

I've reviewed the introductory material and it claims to document
ISO C.  It also documents traditional (aka K&R) C, but I believe
the book notes those places where traditional C differs from ISO C.
Also, the book documents the 1994 (Amendment 1) extensions to the
ISO C standard, but it designates these as extensions when described
in the book.

I've reread section 7.11.1 and it looks to me like it documents ISO C
(and probably traditional C too).

> If that's C99, I don't
> think we can assume all compilers comply with it.

I don't think the book that I have documents any of the C99 extensions
at all.

> Anyway, I know at least one compiler which would print a warning about
> large constants being converted to unsigned.

Could you test this again?  Remember that the expression in question is
being evaluated by the C preprocessor, not the C compiler proper.

> I think it's best to
> avoid warnings, even if they are not mandated by the standard.

I don't entirely agree; some compilers produce warnings for perfectly
reasonable code.  To avoid these warnings, the author of the code
sometimes needs to employ artifices which render the code less
intelligible to the human reader.  For the testsuite, however, it is
best to avoid *any* warnings since the testsuite harness often views
these as compilation failures and will refuse to run the test
otherwise.

Kevin