From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5031 invoked by alias); 14 Jan 2009 04:24:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 5022 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Jan 2009 04:24:31 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from pool-96-233-71-199.bstnma.fios.verizon.net (HELO cgf.cx) (96.233.71.199) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 14 Jan 2009 04:23:55 +0000 Received: from ednor.cgf.cx (ednor.casa.cgf.cx [192.168.187.5]) by cgf.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id B176A13C028; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 23:23:45 -0500 (EST) Received: by ednor.cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) id AE7A52B385; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 23:23:45 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 04:24:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Joel Brobecker Subject: Re: [RFA/windows] cast of address to DWORD warning (handle_unload_dll) Message-ID: <20090114042345.GA4556@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Joel Brobecker References: <20090114034202.GF31296@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090114034202.GF31296@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) 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: 2009-01/txt/msg00300.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 07:42:02AM +0400, Joel Brobecker wrote: >Hi Chris, > >This is one last case of a conversion of an address to an integer >type whose size doesn't match on Windows64. I missed this one previously >because the sources used by AdaCore don't produce this error message[1]. > >Other than that, I verified that a clean checkout of the sources >allow us to build GDB on Vista64 with no warning. What's left to do >is to add the last necessary bits to allow this port to be built >as a target only, and then announce the port in the NEWS file... > >2009-11-14 Joel Brobecker > > * windows-nat.c (handle_unload_dll): Use host_address to string > in order to print the base address of the DLL that was unloaded. > >This one is hard to test, because it's supposed to never happen. >So I tested it by, ahem, visual inspection (I learnt that expression >at my first job, where we were producing safety critical software). I guess this is ok. I just changed other similar occurrences to %p. Maybe all of those should also be changed for hobgoblinish consistency or this one should be %p too. cgf