From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32018 invoked by alias); 14 Jan 2009 05:24:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 32010 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Jan 2009 05:24:18 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 14 Jan 2009 05:23:42 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B26AC2A968F for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2009 00:23:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 4lnkaqN9QUgH for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2009 00:23:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33D372A967D for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2009 00:23:40 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 093E4E7ACD; Wed, 14 Jan 2009 09:23:32 +0400 (RET) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 05:24:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA/windows] cast of address to DWORD warning (handle_unload_dll) Message-ID: <20090114052332.GB24105@adacore.com> References: <20090114034202.GF31296@adacore.com> <20090114042345.GA4556@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20090114044615.GA24105@adacore.com> <20090114045137.GA5163@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090114045137.GA5163@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i 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/msg00304.txt.bz2 > Ugh. I didn't know Windows behaved that way. I use Cygwin's > implementation internally but I actually don't know what Cygwin does > with %p for the rest of the world and my PC is turned off right now. > Maybe it does the same thing. I didn't realize that cygwin had its own implementation of printf. I tried on x86 XP, and cygwin does print %p as 0xdeadbeef. The same program, compiled with our MinGW compiler generates DEADBEEF. > I guess that's an argument to change this at some point but for now, > it is, of course, ok to check this in. Thanks. Checking in the patch now... -- Joel