From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@is.elta.co.il>
To: kevinb@cygnus.com
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.cygnus.com, jeffh@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFA] fix gdb.base/remote.c for small int targets
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 11:22:00 -0000
Message-id: <9743-Fri31Aug2001212059+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
References: <Pine.SOL.3.91.1010830220552.25088t-100000@taarna.cygnus.com> <2110-Fri31Aug2001102556+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> <1010831152902.ZM23264@ocotillo.lan> <3791-Fri31Aug2001185918+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> <1010831164514.ZM23469@ocotillo.lan>
X-SW-Source: 2001-08/msg00323.html

> Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 09:45:14 -0700
> From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@cygnus.com>
> 
> > Anyway, I know at least one compiler which would print a warning about
> > large constants being converted to unsigned.
> 
> Could you test this again?  Remember that the expression in question is
> being evaluated by the C preprocessor, not the C compiler proper.
> 
> > I think it's best to
> > avoid warnings, even if they are not mandated by the standard.
> 
> I don't entirely agree; some compilers produce warnings for perfectly
> reasonable code.

Kevin, I don't want to make a prolonged argument out of this.  If
you-all are happy with including that code verbatim, I don't mind,
either.