From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26788 invoked by alias); 13 May 2009 18:35:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 26703 invoked by uid 22791); 13 May 2009 18:35:28 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtagate3.de.ibm.com (HELO mtagate3.de.ibm.com) (195.212.29.152) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 May 2009 18:35:23 +0000 Received: from d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.49]) by mtagate3.de.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n4DIZHXc167666 for ; Wed, 13 May 2009 18:35:17 GMT Received: from d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.228]) by d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.2) with ESMTP id n4DIZH324149350 for ; Wed, 13 May 2009 20:35:17 +0200 Received: from d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n4DIZGF9003852 for ; Wed, 13 May 2009 20:35:17 +0200 Received: from tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com (tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com [9.152.85.9]) by d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with SMTP id n4DIZFif003840; Wed, 13 May 2009 20:35:15 +0200 Message-Id: <200905131835.n4DIZFif003840@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> Received: by tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 13 May 2009 20:35:15 +0200 Subject: Re: [RFC-v2] Remove i386 low level debug register function from nm- header file. To: eliz@gnu.org Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 18:35:00 -0000 From: "Ulrich Weigand" Cc: muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, pedro@codesourcery.com In-Reply-To: <833ab8swm2.fsf@gnu.org> from "Eli Zaretskii" at May 13, 2009 09:09:41 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2009-05/txt/msg00281.txt.bz2 Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > When you build on a 32-bit system, this probably won't result in > > an error, even though it's strictly speaking still invalid C ... > > What is invalid C? Assigning a function with prototype void func (unsigned long arg); to a function pointer with prototype void (*ptr) (unsigned arg); (even on platforms where "unsigned long" is the same size as "unsigned"). > > As far as I know, those values are in fact 32-bit, so I guess > > "unsigned" (or preferably, "unsigned int") should be OK to use. > > I see no need to add "int" to "unsigned", FWIW. My comment was just for consistency with the rest of the code base. I though we were not using plain "unsigned" anywhere else. However, after checking the code base, it seems there's already a number of places that do so. I don't really mind then, so I withdraw the suggestion to use "unsigned int". Bye, Ulrich -- Dr. Ulrich Weigand GNU Toolchain for Linux on System z and Cell BE Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com