From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12624 invoked by alias); 20 Apr 2005 22:28:01 -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 12590 invoked from network); 20 Apr 2005 22:27:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 20 Apr 2005 22:27:55 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.50 #1 (Debian)) id 1DONfi-0000C9-UZ; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 18:27:51 -0400 Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:28:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Mark Kettenis Cc: manjo@austin.ibm.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] unsigned32 and unsigned64 is multiply defined in sim-types.h. Message-ID: <20050420222750.GA705@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Mark Kettenis , manjo@austin.ibm.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200504202206.j3KM6nPZ022715@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200504202206.j3KM6nPZ022715@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-SW-Source: 2005-04/txt/msg00246.txt.bz2 On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 12:06:49AM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 10:01:52 -0500 (CDT) > From: Manoj Iyer > > --- src/sim/common/sim-types.h 2002-11-22 19:12:05.000000000 -0600 > +++ new/src/sim/common/sim-types.h 2005-04-20 09:52:45.000000000 -0500 > @@ -112,11 +112,11 @@ typedef struct { signed64 a[2]; } signed > typedef signed char signed8; > typedef signed short signed16; > #if defined (__ALPHA__) > -typedef signed int unsigned32; > -typedef signed long unsigned64; > +typedef signed int signed32; > +typedef signed long signed64; > #else > -typedef signed long unsigned32; > -typedef signed long long unsigned64; > +typedef signed long signed32; > +typedef signed long long signed64; > #endif > > typedef unsigned char unsigned8; > > B.t.w. this whole bit of code looks highly suspicious (but that's not > your fault Manjo). It looks as if this implies the alpha is still the > only 64-bit architecture around. It's also in a not-GNUC and not-MSVC block. I doubt any of this works especially well - although as a point of interest to Manoj, it probably won't work on xlC if xlC supports PPC64. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC