From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-67955-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 5377 invoked by alias); 23 Oct 2009 14:55:04 -0000
Received: (qmail 5362 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Oct 2009 14:55:04 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_JMF_BL,SPF_SOFTFAIL
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il (HELO mtaout22.012.net.il) (80.179.55.172)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:54:59 +0000
Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0KRZ003002NU6600@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:54:57 +0200 (IST)
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.70.77.20]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0KRZ00LZX2RKVOE0@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:54:57 +0200 (IST)
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:55:00 -0000
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [RFA, 3 of 3] save/restore process record, part 3 (save/restore)
In-reply-to: <m3my3if9s5.fsf@hase.home>
To: Andreas Schwab <schwab@redhat.com>
Cc: muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr, ppluzhnikov@google.com, msnyder@vmware.com, teawater@gmail.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Message-id: <831vkugo1e.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <4AD91D72.1030802@vmware.com> <daef60380910191946s2aa7d487i31b17be7ee786e44@mail.gmail.com> <4ADE1612.9040708@vmware.com> <4ADE167F.2020309@vmware.com> <daef60380910201935h66b84095hfd713262d194c0df@mail.gmail.com> <4AE0B40B.5020802@vmware.com> <8ac60eac0910221340y2ad104fo5e4229f017957a5b@mail.gmail.com> <4AE0C669.5020001@vmware.com> <8ac60eac0910221425q63b78a7cnb92b0ddf1c8f5e61@mail.gmail.com> <8ac60eac0910221745t3ef6eb56ra6609086ad07f23@mail.gmail.com> <8ac60eac0910221803p2b45453bu17473aa7e9453a60@mail.gmail.com> <006001ca53be$25d1ab70$71750250$@u-strasbg.fr> <837humh1bn.fsf@gnu.org> <m3my3if9s5.fsf@hase.home>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-10/txt/msg00578.txt.bz2

> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
> 	FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=ham version=3.1.0
> From: Andreas Schwab <schwab@redhat.com>
> Cc: Pierre Muller <muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr>, ppluzhnikov@google.com,
>         msnyder@vmware.com, teawater@gmail.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:46:18 +0200
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > sizeof returns a value of the type `size_t'.  On a 64-bit host, size_t
> > is typically a 64-bit data type, and so is `unsigned long'.
> 
> Even though the sizeof return value has type size_t it still may fit in
> an int (and most of the time it does).

That's true, but printf will still complain, unless we cast
explicitly.