From: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@redhat.com>
To: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hans-peter.nilsson@axis.com>
Cc: binutils@sourceware.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bfd: Use size_t for length argument totarget_read_memory function passed into bfd_elf_bfd_from_remote_memory
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 19:54:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120602012410.43f5fdf6@spoyarek> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201206011824.q51IOEA8029007@ignucius.se.axis.com>
On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 20:24:14 +0200, Hans-Peter wrote:
> There's always bfd_size_type, though I haven't checked if it
> fits your needs.
Should be OK as long as it always matches the size_t definition in the
stddef.h that gcc ships. They're both typically unsigned long, but if
that is so, then bfd_size_type should have been typedef'd to size_t
anyway.
> This caused failure to build for simulators for (at least) the
> following targets:
>
> cris-elf, frv-elf, h8300-elf, iq2000-elf, m32r-elf, mips-elf, and
> mn10300-elf.
>
> They fail building either of sim/common/cgen-utils.c,
> sim/common/sim-command.c, sim/mips/interp.c, or
> sim/common/nrun.c all due to lack of size_t definition; a
> missing include of stddef.h before its use.
>
> Should bfd.h include sysdep.h or what is missing?
An stddef.h include in bfd.h should fix this. That or I can fix my
patch to use bfd_size_type provided its size is always equal to
size_t, so that the include is not needed. Which way would be
preferable?
Regards,
Siddhesh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-06-01 19:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-05-28 9:05 Siddhesh Poyarekar
2012-05-28 11:03 ` Alan Modra
2012-05-28 11:11 ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
2012-05-28 21:29 ` Jan Kratochvil
2012-06-01 18:06 ` [commit bfd+gdb] " Jan Kratochvil
2012-06-01 18:24 ` Hans-Peter Nilsson
2012-06-01 19:54 ` Siddhesh Poyarekar [this message]
2012-06-01 20:31 ` Jan Kratochvil
2012-06-01 21:05 ` [patch#2] " Jan Kratochvil
2012-06-01 21:21 ` Hans-Peter Nilsson
2012-06-04 5:10 ` Hans-Peter Nilsson
2012-06-04 5:25 ` Jan Kratochvil
2012-06-04 6:23 ` Hans-Peter Nilsson
2012-06-04 12:11 ` Alan Modra
2012-06-04 14:37 ` [commit] " Jan Kratochvil
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2012-05-28 9:04 [PATCH] " Siddhesh Poyarekar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120602012410.43f5fdf6@spoyarek \
--to=siddhesh@redhat.com \
--cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=hans-peter.nilsson@axis.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox