From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18454 invoked by alias); 15 Mar 2006 22:36:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 18446 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Mar 2006 22:36:32 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 22:36:31 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FJebV-0006e2-GF for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 17:36:29 -0500 Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 22:59:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: Correct "paddr_t" in gdb_proc_service.h Message-ID: <20060315223629.GA25509@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20060315163650.GA16226@nevyn.them.org> <200603152234.k2FMY7kd008466@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200603152234.k2FMY7kd008466@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-03/txt/msg00205.txt.bz2 On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 11:34:07PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:36:50 -0500 > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > > > If there is no , GDB will typedef unsigned long to paddr_t, > > which is then used in various libthread_db interfaces. Even when this code > > was designed to work on Solaris systems in addition to GNU/Linux, this > > wasn't right; Solaris doesn't provide a paddr_t that has anything to do with > > libthread_db, only an unrelated one that deals with physical addressing. > > Yes indeed. On BSD paddr_t is an usnigned integer type used to store > physical memory addresses > > > The type that glibc's libthread_db uses is psaddr_t, which is a pointer > > type. > > > > When I wrote this patch (last year) I went through the original changelog > > entries for this file from 2000; they suggest that this change is correct > > and there should be no paddr_t references in GDB. > > I think that's right, and therefore I don't understand your change at all :(. Well, we do have paddr_t references. Want me to replace them all with psaddr_t references while I'm here? (The same casts will still be necessary, since again, psaddr_t is a pointer type.) -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery