From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14206 invoked by alias); 1 Feb 2003 06:40:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 14199 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2003 06:40:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.157.209.173) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 1 Feb 2003 06:40:23 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36FDB3C9D; Sat, 1 Feb 2003 01:40:15 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E3B6BCF.6090601@redhat.com> Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 06:40:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20021211 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Eliminate char buf[MAX_REGISTER_RAW_SIZE] References: <3E3AFFA5.9080902@redhat.com> <20030201061310.GB22468@gnat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00013.txt.bz2 > I have a simple (stupid?) question: Generaly speaking, is there a > prefered form between the following two? > > max_register_raw_size (current_gdbarch) > > or > > MAX_REGISTER_RAW_SIZE > > These two forms are exactly equivalent, but in most occurences I've seen > in the code, we used the macro... But maybe you used the non-macro form > to show that we do an alloca because the size of the buffer is not known > at compile-time? Old == MAX_REGISTER_RAW_SIZE, MAX_REGISTER_VIRTUAL_SIZE. New == max_register_size (current_gdbarch) The old macro's will eventually go away. Andrew