From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21545 invoked by alias); 15 Oct 2002 01:01:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 21538 invoked from network); 15 Oct 2002 01:01:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Oct 2002 01:01:40 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g9F0fEw15337 for ; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 20:41:14 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g9F11ef23474 for ; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 21:01:40 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-37.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.37]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g9F11da22510; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 21:01:39 -0400 Received: (from kev@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g9F11YA03116; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 18:01:34 -0700 Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 18:01:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1021015010133.ZM3115@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Jim Blandy "Re: [PATCH RFA/RFC] Short pointer support" (Oct 14, 3:45pm) References: <1021011212623.ZM21899@localhost.localdomain> To: Jim Blandy Subject: Re: [PATCH RFA/RFC] Short pointer support Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00267.txt.bz2 On Oct 14, 3:45pm, Jim Blandy wrote: > It would be nice if we actually checked the pointer size against the > correct size of short pointers on the target. There's something that > feels a little flimsy about the way the patch just marks any pointer > with a non-standard size with TYPE_FLAG_SHORTPTR. Wouldn't it be more > robust to have an arch method that takes a non-standard pointer size, > and returns the appropriate type flags for that, or zero if it's > something it doesn't recognize? Or whatever. Okay, this patch is withdrawn. I'm in the process of redoing it so that it's more general and more robust. Kevin