From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29686 invoked by alias); 10 Aug 2012 07:58:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 29676 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Aug 2012 07:58:19 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.4 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; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 07:58:02 +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 q7A7w2Ia029909 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 03:58:02 -0400 Received: from spoyarek (dhcp223-8.pnq.redhat.com [10.65.223.8] (may be forged)) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q7A7w0mY018849; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 03:58:01 -0400 Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 07:58:00 -0000 From: Siddhesh Poyarekar To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: bitpos expansion patches summary Message-ID: <20120810132732.5bb1b66a@spoyarek> In-Reply-To: <20120810075056.GA1974@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20120805005350.150e5b74@spoyarek> <20120809200356.GA11680@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120810071338.15d68ab0@spoyarek> <20120810075056.GA1974@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: 2012-08/txt/msg00306.txt.bz2 On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 09:50:56 +0200, Jan wrote: > if (accumulate_size < 0) > error (_("Total size of arguments too large for host GDB > memory.")); > > It also should print the sizes, in some cases GDB would print the > first error above, in other cases the second error, I do not think > there is a difference. Ack. > We discussed before that the larger size of unsigned types vs. signed > types is not useful. GDB will never successfully allocate more than > 2GB on 32-bit host (size_t max larger than ssize_t). And it does not > make sense to consider anyhow sizes above 9 quintillion (ULONGEST max > larger than LONGEST on any host or size_t larger than ssize_t on > 64-bit hosts) OK, I'll limit it to SIZE_MAX / 8 (i.e. SSIZE_MAX / 4). I'll send an updated patch in this case since the size_t patch is not that large. Regards, Siddhesh