From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17851 invoked by alias); 15 Aug 2008 04:20:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 17842 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Aug 2008 04:20:44 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 15 Aug 2008 04:20:05 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC291983B4; Fri, 15 Aug 2008 04:20:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 770E198243; Fri, 15 Aug 2008 04:20:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KTqnC-00044X-SK; Fri, 15 Aug 2008 00:20:02 -0400 Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 04:20:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFA: fix PR 1535 Message-ID: <20080815042002.GC16436@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20080814174814.GB15804@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2008-08/txt/msg00394.txt.bz2 On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 05:23:54PM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote: > How pedantically C is gdb? Here I cast some small integers to > 'void*'. Alternatively I could turn the "context" into a union, or > make some globals. Go through uintptr_t, please. I've made stdint.h always available and that will be the right size; if you go int -> void * you will break x86_64. Well, you tested x86_64. But I'm not sure why you didn't get a warning for (void *) 1. > Also, I notice that hardly anything else uses the 'sfunc' code. Is > the intent to restrict this just to 'set' functions? IOW, is this an > abuse? I dont know, but it looks entirely reasonable to me. Patch is OK. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery