From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@cygnus.com>
To: John Hughes <john@Calva.COM>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.cygnus.com
Subject: Re: procfs.c thinks pid's can't be bigger than 99999
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 11:56:00 -0000
Message-id: <3B40C3D0.1A96E1A7@cygnus.com>
References: <CDENKKMHIFMALMCCKPCFKEEJCAAA.john@Calva.COM>
X-SW-Source: 2001-07/msg00011.html

John Hughes wrote:
> 
> but on some systems, for example UnixWare NSC they
> can be quite a lot bigger.
> 
> --- procfs.c.orig       Tue May 15 02:03:36 2001
> +++ procfs.c    Mon Jul  2 14:40:05 2001
> @@ -295,7 +295,7 @@
>  #  define AS_PROC_NAME_FMT     "/proc/%d/as"
>  #  define MAP_PROC_NAME_FMT    "/proc/%d/map"
>  #  define STATUS_PROC_NAME_FMT "/proc/%d/status"
> -#  define MAX_PROC_NAME_SIZE sizeof("/proc/99999/lwp/8096/lstatus")
> +#  define MAX_PROC_NAME_SIZE sizeof("/proc/1048576/lwp/8096/lstatus")
>  # endif
>  /* the name of the proc status struct depends on the implementation */
>  typedef pstatus_t   gdb_prstatus_t;

Well, actually, aren't we going to run into trouble if 
pids are bigger than 16 bits?  Or did Kevin Buettner's 
recent changes take care of that?

Other than that, I have no problem with this change.