From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14370 invoked by alias); 20 May 2012 20:28:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 14360 invoked by uid 22791); 20 May 2012 20:28:41 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-vb0-f41.google.com (HELO mail-vb0-f41.google.com) (209.85.212.41) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 20 May 2012 20:28:28 +0000 Received: by vbbey12 with SMTP id ey12so4172489vbb.0 for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 13:28:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-system-of-record :x-gm-message-state; bh=mQYZtzrj+Wt3r9IrWhy2+4X7oTDBy1I12NYjjch2lYA=; b=Flfcns2AkYoP+rleMOI8MLiviEudvpotSo8YSndUrAlXeTrkJmZMcK7Q64I1mFDNWf p6X70PVMBfvzaFCHJv3CWg8OJo+EGtYEA7gShqa7yjrRc87hRm0U9nQ6RN+opGdd9rYE MlLVWeTJi1orQ2xyb1AsDJoumOpFt+pDiT4TX7XuKO3fbLkEQh0cWJ1T39MAij1K+TiS bjRpUbT7FYu8I9i/S2XKPYkcXi66Xeet1ZDAHVD1N94H1EHlE7IL1KhfmnPgkGa5zM/Y Gtrth1dK+40FOc0Y8wnMngG214Q8S2bDORIKuFjDML83ebr5JqBr/uruQz1FrWsnwP0Q Dxbw== Received: by 10.52.95.110 with SMTP id dj14mr8661324vdb.69.1337545707540; Sun, 20 May 2012 13:28:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.95.110 with SMTP id dj14mr8661315vdb.69.1337545707432; Sun, 20 May 2012 13:28:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.172.166 with HTTP; Sun, 20 May 2012 13:28:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20120520202421.GA17516@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20120220132724.GB4753@spoyarek.pnq.redhat.com> <20120221210235.GA26897@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120504183858.67d416b7@spoyarek> <20120515200454.GA11338@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120516092012.4acba735@spoyarek> <20120516071911.GA31894@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120516131151.049251cc@spoyarek> <20120520202421.GA17516@host2.jankratochvil.net> Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 20:28:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Expand bitpos and type.length to LONGEST and ULONGEST From: Doug Evans To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: Siddhesh Poyarekar , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Tom Tromey Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-System-Of-Record: true X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnc31ZDmemV9LxeTl4e2O8voMkFBx/gsNz1AM8D9yqTRVUDF8KeWn6+TOqejYhOCmFlqMlS1lnJhF6Q52B3IuZx4cN923kT1GmfuLxUYoVpCQBqxSyNjsacDClUd/qfXcT1l1zlcTbXIhfAiRBdCmP7Z5ozBA== 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: 2012-05/txt/msg00750.txt.bz2 On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Sun, 20 May 2012 17:42:56 +0200, Doug Evans wrote: >> Since it's now ok to use int64_t,uint64_t (right?) I wonder if we >> should move away from LONGEST,ULONGEST. >> [I remember a port Cygnus once did where long long was 128 bits. =A01/2 = :-)] > > I agree. =A0Although if for example Siddhesh has the patch already mostly= ready > with LONGEST/ULONGEST I do not think it needs to be reworked, do you? Naw, I'm not suggesting it has to be reworked. Now seemed like a good time to raise the issue, that's all.