From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25246 invoked by alias); 4 Sep 2007 22:40:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 25233 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Sep 2007 22:40:21 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 04 Sep 2007 22:40:16 +0000 Received: from brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.1/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l84Me9UD005900; Wed, 5 Sep 2007 00:40:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id l84Me9bh032691; Wed, 5 Sep 2007 00:40:09 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 22:40:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200709042240.l84Me9bh032691@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: drow@false.org CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20070903175312.GM12440@caradoc.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Mon, 3 Sep 2007 13:53:12 -0400) Subject: Re: [RFC] Changes to signed char and unsigned char handling References: <20070705135402.GA4300@caradoc.them.org> <20070825011757.GA15793@caradoc.them.org> <20070903175312.GM12440@caradoc.them.org> Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-09/txt/msg00058.txt.bz2 > Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 13:53:12 -0400 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 09:17:57PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > Here's option 1 instead: > > > > 1. Make vector types special. Treat arrays of single byte integers > > as characters, like before, unless they occur in a vector type. This > > is reasonable, but tricky to implement. > > > > It restores the historic behavior for unsigned char and signed char. > > Only the behavior of vector registers has changed. You basically > > never want to print these as strings, but since I had already > > implemented print/s I kept it. > > Mark, did you want to look at this revised approach? I think it > will satisfy everyone; I'd like to include it in 6.7, if so. > > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2007-08/msg00467.html Bleah! It was my intention to test this new diff, and recheck my sparc machine to see why your first diff caused me so many problems, but I haven't found the time to do either. But this diff makes much more sense to me, so feel free to get it in. Mark