From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16860 invoked by alias); 14 Feb 2011 21:12:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 16844 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Feb 2011 21:12:43 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 21:12:36 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p1ELCR5G014467 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 14 Feb 2011 16:12:27 -0500 Received: from host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p1ELCP4j012856 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 14 Feb 2011 16:12:26 -0500 Received: from host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p1ELCOga010049; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 22:12:24 +0100 Received: (from jkratoch@localhost) by host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p1ELCNn1010048; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 22:12:23 +0100 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 21:44:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [unavailable values part 1, 03/17] expose list of available ranges to common code Message-ID: <20110214211223.GA9425@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net> References: <201102071429.19096.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20110214115939.GC2454@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <201102141939.10946.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201102141939.10946.pedro@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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: 2011-02/txt/msg00301.txt.bz2 On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 20:39:10 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: > On Monday 14 February 2011 11:59:39, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > > > +struct mem_range > > > +{ > > > + /* Lowest address in the range. */ > > > + CORE_ADDR start; > > > + > > > + /* Length of the range. */ > > > + int length; > > > +}; > > > > Why couldn't GDB become 64bit clean - that is CORE_ADDR length. > > Probably a leftover from the value ranges stuff (value lengths > are ints, and so I made the value range lengths be ints too). > But I disagree with making it a CORE_ADDR. I think > lengths should be LONGEST or ULONGEST. While ULONGEST should work due to this invariant: ULONGEST_MAX >= CORE_ADDR_MAX Still in which case an inferior object size does not fit in CORE_ADDR? I do not think it can happen, CORE_ADDR should be OK for inferior size_t. Thanks, Jan