From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6461 invoked by alias); 28 Feb 2003 16:37:58 -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 6454 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2003 16:37:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 28 Feb 2003 16:37:58 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18opPX-0006DR-00 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 12:39:08 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18onWF-0006Pw-00 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:37:55 -0500 Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 16:37:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA]: File-I/O patch, Documentation Message-ID: <20030228163755.GA24652@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20021121100443.U24928@cygbert.vinschen.de> <3E5D4C4C.1040502@redhat.com> <20030227083701.GE20955@cygbert.vinschen.de> <3E5E9A1A.9000708@redhat.com> <20030228083308.GG24097@cygbert.vinschen.de> <20030228152504.GC23109@nevyn.them.org> <20030228154926.GL20955@cygbert.vinschen.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030228154926.GL20955@cygbert.vinschen.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00816.txt.bz2 On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 04:49:26PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 10:25:04AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 09:33:08AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > > c99 (what ever the standard) formalized a number of explicitly sized > > > > types (int32 et.al. I believe). I think this table should be specified > > > > using those types. The alternative is to generalize the > > > > sim/common/sim-types.h file and then specify the sizes using that. > > > > > > I don't think so. The protocol is more or less self-contained. All > > > definitions are based on the assumption, that you'll never find a > > > really matching combination of values as they are defined on all > > > machines. Looking into the fileio code you'll see, that gdb has a > > > couple of functions which transform all protocol datatypes to host > > > datatypes and all protocol values to host values and vice versa. > > > This is done that way to be totally independent from other sources of > > > definition (especially machine dependent definitions). > > > > > > It's *expected* that the gdb plugin on the target side is doing the > > > same. > > > > Sure. But how big are they on the wire? I think that's what Andrew > > was asking to be clarified. > > ...which is written into the document in the chapter "Integral datatypes" > which I mistakenly referenced as "B.1" as it was in my original document > I've send months ago on the gdb ML. Sorry. I was extrapolating from Andrew's answer, and it's been months since I read it. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer