Re: [PATCH] Memory reads and writes should have size_t length

Jan Kratochvil
2012-06-01T18:10:26Z

On Thu, 31 May 2012 09:23:20 +0200, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> --- a/gdb/corefile.c
> +++ b/gdb/corefile.c
> @@ -213,7 +213,7 @@ memory_error (int status, CORE_ADDR memaddr)
> /* Same as target_read_memory, but report an error if can't read. */
>
> void
> -read_memory (CORE_ADDR memaddr, gdb_byte *myaddr, int len)
> +read_memory (CORE_ADDR memaddr, gdb_byte *myaddr, size_t len)

This patch goes again more far than what is needed, couldn't this be ssize_t?
Making it unsigned could be some other cleanup.

The bfd/ change could also use ssize_t but I find the bfd-gdb interface could
be more final.

Thanks,
Jan