exec_file_hook_count data-type

exec_file_hook_count data-type

[Daniel Lucq]

Hi all,

I suppose exec_file_hook_count in corefile.c should always be >= 0, so why 
not make it an unsigned instead of an int? (yeah, I suppose this is a 
minor issue, but still :-)).

Regards,
Daniel Lucq

--- corefile.c.orig	Sun Feb 22 19:44:17 2004
+++ corefile.c	Sun Feb 22 19:45:18 2004
@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@
 
 hook_type exec_file_display_hook;	/* the original hook */
 static hook_type *exec_file_extra_hooks;	/* array of additional hooks */
-static int exec_file_hook_count = 0;	/* size of array */
+static unsigned exec_file_hook_count = 0;	/* size of array */
 
 /* Binary file diddling handle for the core file.  */
 
@@ -86,7 +86,7 @@
 static void
 call_extra_exec_file_hooks (char *filename)
 {
-  int i;
+  unsigned i;
 
   for (i = 0; i < exec_file_hook_count; i++)
     (*exec_file_extra_hooks[i]) (filename);

Re: exec_file_hook_count data-type

[Michael Snyder]

Daniel Lucq wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I suppose exec_file_hook_count in corefile.c should always be >= 0, so why 
> not make it an unsigned instead of an int? (yeah, I suppose this is a 
> minor issue, but still :-)).
> 
> Regards,
> Daniel Lucq

Looks good.  I won't demand that you use "unsigned int", but I'd
like it.  I don't think it's covered by the coding standard, but
it seems to be the norm within gdb code (with exceptions), and in
my old age I find consistency comforting.  ;-)


> --- corefile.c.orig	Sun Feb 22 19:44:17 2004
> +++ corefile.c	Sun Feb 22 19:45:18 2004
> @@ -53,7 +53,7 @@
>  
>  hook_type exec_file_display_hook;	/* the original hook */
>  static hook_type *exec_file_extra_hooks;	/* array of additional hooks */
> -static int exec_file_hook_count = 0;	/* size of array */
> +static unsigned exec_file_hook_count = 0;	/* size of array */
>  
>  /* Binary file diddling handle for the core file.  */
>  
> @@ -86,7 +86,7 @@
>  static void
>  call_extra_exec_file_hooks (char *filename)
>  {
> -  int i;
> +  unsigned i;
>  
>    for (i = 0; i < exec_file_hook_count; i++)
>      (*exec_file_extra_hooks[i]) (filename);
> 

Re: exec_file_hook_count data-type

[Daniel Lucq]

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Michael Snyder wrote:

> Looks good.  I won't demand that you use "unsigned int", but I'd
> like it.  I don't think it's covered by the coding standard, but
> it seems to be the norm within gdb code (with exceptions), and in
> my old age I find consistency comforting.  ;-)
OK, I concur whole-heartedly :-). Re-attached with "unsigned int" instead 
of "int"...

Regards,
Daniel Lucq

--- corefile.c.orig	Sun Feb 22 19:44:17 2004
+++ corefile.c	Sun Feb 22 19:45:18 2004
@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@

 hook_type exec_file_display_hook;	/* the original hook */
 static hook_type *exec_file_extra_hooks;	/* array of additional hooks */
-static int exec_file_hook_count = 0;	/* size of array */
+static unsigned int exec_file_hook_count = 0;	/* size of array */
 
 /* Binary file diddling handle for the core file.  */
  
@@ -86,7 +86,7 @@
 static void
 call_extra_exec_file_hooks (char *filename)
 {
-  int i;
+  unsigned int i;
 
   for (i = 0; i < exec_file_hook_count; i++)
     (*exec_file_extra_hooks[i]) (filename);