From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6263 invoked by alias); 23 May 2012 07:27:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 6238 invoked by uid 22791); 23 May 2012 07:27:56 -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; Wed, 23 May 2012 07:27:40 +0000 Received: by vbbey12 with SMTP id ey12so5636532vbb.0 for ; Wed, 23 May 2012 00:27:39 -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=2jLbxA6H5Tl7EKWjaB+dfEgXT5UtTdmiv7mezUqYU0U=; b=FhLmN/x4wqr/fHrKdzuURSrQLG6SjtOsYAoTITz4MZOzvYvOvBfR6Kn1VR1kkeZHUk atQsCP6uVp61ZPzbaNUiF3PZVGVwaHRZTMV8XD58HeIlt6o8ujnZgYG/3EgL1tX2dn/9 8/oVjPzeWF4///g/z4+M6YkqKzzj0rNHklFMST6yxqDqBPsQ5w+Y4I9WBrz3vrz7ARlE meYdV3XJ48DObx0ttmSy75DhYk5lztoivLoqtP0Avot6NEGUoa4Mn2latfssyk373+jP 0Gml/3ottp+JxYfgZTTmIjYs5dpOBl98gY/JUmon3eLJL3ewr11tz3djjLP0SpFqLhfP r8xw== Received: by 10.220.241.135 with SMTP id le7mr2335260vcb.63.1337758059460; Wed, 23 May 2012 00:27:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.241.135 with SMTP id le7mr2335255vcb.63.1337758059355; Wed, 23 May 2012 00:27:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.172.166 with HTTP; Wed, 23 May 2012 00:27:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20120523015503.GA25312@sourceware.org> Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 07:27:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: New ARI warning Wed May 23 01:55:03 UTC 2012 From: Doug Evans To: gdb-patches Cc: Sergio Durigan Junior Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-System-Of-Record: true X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlD++w8qoVqXsoqzhB7Opi+WGa9+9egJ7taoVKfQH3g7r8abGW1VixWzllRxlzQ7F9LXNX7HDRuKtXA+U8QTHi0mCERe1CF7SlvcVelIjX6PxaMZNYsW8YcN8WdU1K/DkKT2URBg5w9HIjPvv6XJRUSiabzIA== 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/msg00864.txt.bz2 Hmmm, there's more than a few uses of long long in gdb (not all conditioned on CC_HAS_LONG_LONG, though most are in target files) and gdbserver (I was pretty sure I checked at the time). So is this ARI check outdated? I'm happy to change the code as necessary. If we can't use C++ can we at least use a modern C? 1/2 :-) On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 12:10 AM, Doug Evans wrote: > Well, blech. > src/include/leb128.h uses long long per request, so that's what I used he= re. > src/include/anything obviously cannot use LONGEST/ULONGEST. > > Are long long's really verboten? > > I suppose I could create a gdb-leb128.h that used LONGEST/ULONGEST, > but blech. > > > On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Sergio Durigan Junior > wrote: >> WDYT about the following patch? =A0I would like you to take a look at the >> gdb/dwarf2expr.h's castings that I had to make in order to get the >> compilation right.