Re: [rfc] Fixes for sim and gdb gdb_mbuild.sh failures

[Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>]

On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 11:29:14AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:



>The others were all warnings.  Two are dead fix_call_dummy's, one is a
>printf format string warning (sizeof is size_t, which is not necessarily
>long), and three are long 64-bit constants without suffixes.  The last I'm
>least sure about.  ia64-tdep.c already used the LL suffix, but alpha-tdep.c
>and amd64-tdep.c didn't.  I'm slightly worried that a native Alpha (Compaq)
>compiler will complain about the LL syntax (since CORE_ADDR may be just a
>long in that case, and I remember Compaq's compiler as being remarkably
>pedantic).  Joel (or someone else), I don't suppose you could test this
>patch by building GDB on OSF/1?

There must be something in src/include to portably handle `LL' - what 
does bfd do?  It isn't ISO-C '90.


Only elfxx-ia64.c and opcode/d30v.h (and related files in opcodes/) use
long long constants; everything else seems to avoid needing them, as
far as I can tell.  I could decompose most of them into shifts and
casts to CORE_ADDR instead if you think it's worth it.
Let binutils know they should delete the d30v code.

I guess we live with LL on 64-bit platforms.

Andrew