Re: [PATCH] Do not write negative PID or TID in remote protocol

[Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>]

>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <tromey@adacore.com> writes:

Ping for this patch.

I guess at some point I'll just put it in.
Note below...

Tom> Currently both gdb and gdbserver can write a negative number for the
Tom> PID or TID.  However, the only negative value that really makes sense
Tom> is the special case of "-1" -- in other cases if the PID or TID has
Tom> the high bit set, it should still be written as a positive number.

Tom> This patch attempts to fix the bug.

Tom> v2 of this patch combines the implementations and moves them to
Tom> gdbsupport.  I tried making these standalone functions in rsp-low.cc,
Tom> but that runs afoul of libipa.  So, I made them methods of ptid_t.

Tom> The new unit tests pointed out that round-tripping a sign-extended
Tom> number didn't really work, because the checks were done via ULONGEST.
Tom> It's kind of unfortunate that the PID and LWP are host-dependent
Tom> types.  This should probably be fixed, but I haven't done so here.

Maybe this should be done.

Also at some point I should update the RSP docs, though the exact update
depends on the outcome of whether or not we decide to widen the types.

Tom