Re: [PATCH 1/3] gdb: Added builtin types for 24 bit integers.

Simon Marchi
2018-08-24T20:37:36Z

On 2018-08-24 11:29, John Darrington wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 11:09:40AM -0400, Simon Marchi wrote:
>
> I'm not sure I understand. I was only talking about the
> definition of
> the int24_t and uint24_t types, not the handling of
> DW_EH_PE_udata3.
> From what I read, the C99 standard mandates that the 8, 16, 32 and
> 64
> variants of the intX_t/uintX_t types exist. Other types (with
> other
> values of X) would be extensions. That's why I thought it would
> make
> sense to define that in the s12z-specific gdbarches only. In the
> end I
> don't really mind, but it just looks like the "clean" way to do it
> and
> doesn't seem really more difficult. Can you see if the attached
> diff
> (applied on top of your series) work for you?
>
>
> Yes, I see no reason why that shouldn't work. Like you say, C99 et.
> al.
> doesn't require uint24_t but doesn't prohibit it either. I just
> thought, that it makes sense to keep all these type definitions in the
> same place so as to avoid the next 24 bit arch having to copy this
> definition. But I don't have a strong opinion either way.

I see, then that's fine with mean to have it in gdbarch.

Simon