From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5027 invoked by alias); 13 May 2009 18:09:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 5014 invoked by uid 22791); 13 May 2009 18:09:46 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,BOTNET,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout1.012.net.il (HELO mtaout1.012.net.il) (84.95.2.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 May 2009 18:09:41 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.i-mtaout1.012.net.il by i-mtaout1.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0KJL00H00H11Z000@i-mtaout1.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Wed, 13 May 2009 21:09:37 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.228.73.80]) by i-mtaout1.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0KJL0094EH3ZTPB0@i-mtaout1.012.net.il>; Wed, 13 May 2009 21:09:37 +0300 (IDT) Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 18:09:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [RFC-v2] Remove i386 low level debug register function from nm- header file. In-reply-to: <200905131533.n4DFXcvm019686@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr, muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, pedro@codesourcery.com Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <833ab8swm2.fsf@gnu.org> References: <200905131533.n4DFXcvm019686@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-05/txt/msg00278.txt.bz2 > Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 17:33:38 +0200 (CEST) > From: "Ulrich Weigand" > Cc: muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr ('Pierre Muller'), gdb-patches@sourceware.org, > pedro@codesourcery.com ('Pedro Alves'), eliz@gnu.org ('Eli Zaretskii') > > Hmm ... it seems there's a disconnect between using "unsigned" > and "unsigned long" as type for the DR6/7 contents. This affects > not only amd64-linux-nat.c, but apparently some other files as well: > > i386bsd-nat.c:i386bsd_dr_set_control (unsigned long control) > i386-linux-nat.c:i386_linux_dr_set_control (unsigned long control) > amd64-linux-nat.c:amd64_linux_dr_set_control (unsigned long control) > > ... but ... > > win32-nat.c:cygwin_set_dr7 (unsigned val) > go32-nat.c:go32_set_dr7 (unsigned val) I'm okay with changing the declarations in go32-nat.c to unsigned long, if that is what's decided. > When you build on a 32-bit system, this probably won't result in > an error, even though it's strictly speaking still invalid C ... What is invalid C? > I think these need to be fixed so they all agree. Yes, it would be good. > As far as I know, those values are in fact 32-bit, so I guess > "unsigned" (or preferably, "unsigned int") should be OK to use. I see no need to add "int" to "unsigned", FWIW.