From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24026 invoked by alias); 16 May 2012 07:41:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 24004 invoked by uid 22791); 16 May 2012 07:41:37 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,MAY_BE_FORGED,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; Wed, 16 May 2012 07:41:18 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q4G7fI9x006141 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 03:41:18 -0400 Received: from spoyarek (dhcp233-8.pnq.redhat.com [10.65.223.8] (may be forged)) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q4G7fFIi021168; Wed, 16 May 2012 03:41:16 -0400 Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 07:41:00 -0000 From: Siddhesh Poyarekar To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Tom Tromey Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Expand bitpos and type.length to LONGEST and ULONGEST Message-ID: <20120516131151.049251cc@spoyarek> In-Reply-To: <20120516071911.GA31894@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20120220132724.GB4753@spoyarek.pnq.redhat.com> <20120221210235.GA26897@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120504183858.67d416b7@spoyarek> <20120515200454.GA11338@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120516092012.4acba735@spoyarek> <20120516071911.GA31894@host2.jankratochvil.net> 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: 2012-05/txt/msg00596.txt.bz2 On Wed, 16 May 2012 09:19:11 +0200, Jan wrote: > On Wed, 16 May 2012 05:50:12 +0200, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > > It would be safer in this case to keep length as LONGEST because > > while I did try to check for all cases where ULONGEST may cause a > > regression (like above), but I cannot say for sure that it's all > > perfect. > > But type->length was already unsigned before. I think it is fine to > keep type->length ULONGEST, there should be no regression due to it. > We agree that unsigned type (ULONGEST) is right for type->length. > > I meant more all the local variables turned signed->unsigned or > unsigned->signed. Ah ok, I misread that. I'll watch out for that. Thanks, Siddhesh