From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26259 invoked by alias); 16 Apr 2009 18:45:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 26234 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Apr 2009 18:45:50 -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; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:45:46 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C2272BAB1C; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 14:45:43 -0400 (EDT) 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 SO4nbucJVBAD; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 14:45:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69AE42BAB13; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 14:45:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5B8B0F58C1; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 11:45:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:45:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [commit] Fix compilation warning in procfs.c on mips-irix Message-ID: <20090416184539.GI7585@adacore.com> References: <20090416173025.GO7557@adacore.com> <200904161924.52037.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200904161924.52037.pedro@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) 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: 2009-04/txt/msg00382.txt.bz2 > - return (*func) ((CORE_ADDR) map->pr_vaddr, > + return (*func) ((CORE_ADDR) (uintptr_t) map->pr_vaddr, > map->pr_size, > (map->pr_mflags & MA_READ) != 0, > (map->pr_mflags & MA_WRITE) != 0, > > Isn't this a problem for MIPS, due to pointer sign-extension? Hmmm, you are probably right. I reverted the patch for now, and will look further into your suggestion a bit later. Thanks! -- Joel