Re: wrong assumptions about pthread_t being numeric

[John Spencer <maillist-gdbpatches@barfooze.de>]

On 09/17/2011 05:43 PM, John Spencer wrote:
> On 09/17/2011 04:28 AM, Joel Brobecker wrote:
>>> i disagree. adding a proper solution once is superior to creating
>>> dozens of special case hacks.  also it saves a lot of time in the long
>>> term.
>> Based on my experience so far, I have to agree with Pedro.
>> But if you do have a superior solution, we'll take a look.
>> I still have to tell you that I won't like it if your solution
>> makes the code harder to read. Sometimes, that's OK because it
>> helps achieving portability.  But when there is no such need for
>> portability, it just gets in the way. Let's also be pragmatic,
>> here and fix the problems that we know we have.
>>
> it would be nice to have an approach which would just work anywhere 
> and respect the spec,
> however i currently have not the resources to implement it.
>
> thus, as you suggested, i came up with a small patch fixing the issue 
> at hand. the solution should work on any sys/libc combination where 
> sizeof(long) == sizeof(void*) and pthread_t is either a pointer or an 
> int with sizeof equal or less than sizeof long.
> this should cover all currently existing combinations.
>
> i may find more spots in the future which need the application of the 
> macro, and will eventually be sending more patches applying the 
> conversion macro to it.
>
> -- JS
>
>

knock, knock. anybody here ?
please tell me wether you accept my patch or not.

-- JS