From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20747 invoked by alias); 19 Apr 2008 00:13:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 20735 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Apr 2008 00:13:53 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.33.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 19 Apr 2008 00:13:20 +0000 Received: from zps76.corp.google.com (zps76.corp.google.com [172.25.146.76]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id m3ILS98v024098; Fri, 18 Apr 2008 22:28:10 +0100 Received: from localhost (meta.corp.google.com [172.22.108.53]) by zps76.corp.google.com with ESMTP id m3ILS6cY012164; Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:28:06 -0700 Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 500) id 28E4C3F24C4; Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:28:06 -0700 (PDT) To: drow@false.org CC: bauerman@br.ibm.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20080417190324.GA21743@caradoc.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:03:24 -0400) Subject: Re: Patch to handle compressed sections References: <20080326180132.GB10127@caradoc.them.org> <20080326183538.346243F25E8@localhost> <20080401140953.GD12753@caradoc.them.org> <20080402000638.1BD1B3F25EF@localhost> <20080402001637.GA18178@caradoc.them.org> <20080403054128.A45A43F25F0@localhost> <20080403064309.5454D3F25F0@localhost> <20080414234559.A3AA03F23CF@localhost> <20080417161526.GF17488@caradoc.them.org> <20080417185752.244673F23EF@localhost> <20080417190324.GA21743@caradoc.them.org> Message-Id: <20080418212806.28E4C3F24C4@localhost> Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 00:32:00 -0000 From: csilvers@google.com (Craig Silverstein) 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: 2008-04/txt/msg00390.txt.bz2 } I see. Well, you could use bfd_getb32 twice... I just felt that the } eight copies of that line were excessive. Then you'd do something like size = (a << 32) + b; which likewise won't work well (well, will give a compiler warning) on 32-bit systems. I agree the code ends up being verbose, but it's pretty straightforward and robust. Would you be ok with the code going in the way it is now? craig