From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22699 invoked by alias); 31 May 2012 06:39:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 22543 invoked by uid 22791); 31 May 2012 06:39:36 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,MAY_BE_FORGED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,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; Thu, 31 May 2012 06:39:20 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q4V6dKXx019173 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 31 May 2012 02:39:20 -0400 Received: from spoyarek (dhcp233-8.pnq.redhat.com [10.65.223.8] (may be forged)) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q4V6dIjK022480; Thu, 31 May 2012 02:39:18 -0400 Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 06:39:00 -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: <20120531120947.64051055@spoyarek> In-Reply-To: <20120523174610.GA23405@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20120220132724.GB4753@spoyarek.pnq.redhat.com> <20120221210235.GA26897@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120504183858.67d416b7@spoyarek> <20120515200454.GA11338@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120523192245.0f785e69@spoyarek> <20120523174610.GA23405@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/msg01071.txt.bz2 On Wed, 23 May 2012 19:46:10 +0200, Jan wrote: > Yes, this size_t change - needs to be also posted to > binutils@sourceware.org for approval (the bfd/ part). I think it > should be done first and the mail to binutils@sourceware.org (Cc > gdb-patches) should not contain parts affecting only gdb/ (it should > contain parts needed to keep gdb/ compatible with the bfd/ changes). > Also maybe binutils will have different opinion on it. > I was getting the second part of this change ready for submission (the first part, i.e. the bfd changes are already posted to gdb-patches and binutils) when I realized that my earlier patch was not consistent with the size_t changes for read/write to memory. The additional changes have mainly to do with changes to to_xfer_partial() and related changes and practically all of it changes LONGEST to size_t. Making these changes is going to be another large patch (not counting the bitpos/type.length changes). Not having the changes will only cause an inconsistency in the code in terms of readability, but should not affect functionality. Is it OK if I just post the changes relevant to bitpos/type.length and leave the rest maybe for later? Regards, Siddhesh