From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9750 invoked by alias); 5 May 2006 20:54:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 9742 invoked by uid 22791); 5 May 2006 20:54:36 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nile.gnat.com (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 May 2006 20:54:34 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D86348CE8D; Fri, 5 May 2006 16:54:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 12243-01-6; Fri, 5 May 2006 16:54:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from takamaka.act-europe.fr (s142-179-108-108.bc.hsia.telus.net [142.179.108.108]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EFF548CE1F; Fri, 5 May 2006 16:54:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id C1E3347E7F; Fri, 5 May 2006 13:54:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 20:54:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Jim Blandy , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA] Cleaner handling of character entities ? Message-ID: <20060505205430.GB1042@adacore.com> References: <20060505182351.GK1109@adacore.com> <20060505182852.GL31029@nevyn.them.org> <20060505190625.GA1042@adacore.com> <20060505194846.GO31029@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060505194846.GO31029@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i 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: 2006-05/txt/msg00108.txt.bz2 > Alternatively, do we think we ought to be using TYPE_CODE_CHAR, and if > so, should we try it? I would be willing to give it a try, and possibly back the change out if we end up finding some compelling reasons to do so. > One possible problem: there are three times as many or so references to > TYPE_CODE_INT in tdep files as there are to TYPE_CODE_CHAR so this > might break argument passing for some targets for C. On those targets > it would probably already be broken for Ada. You are probably correct. This means I would have to review all uses of TYPE_CODE_INT in tdep files. There are not that many as far as I can tell. I think I can review some of them, but many architectures are alien to me (arm, h8300, m32c, m88k, mn10300, s390). -- Joel