RE: New ARI warning Wed May 23 01:55:03 UTC 2012

[Doug Evans <dje@google.com>]

On May 23, 2012 1:19 AM, "Pierre Muller"
<pierre.muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> wrote:
>
>  As a possible ARI maintainer I would like to clarify
> things here:
>  "long long" and "unsigned long long"
> are used in lots of native files, and they are
> OK in those context.
>
>  In fact, one of the improvements I have in mind is
> to restrain some ARI rules, like this one to
> GDB common files.
>  This would mean that files that are
> only used for specific native targets would be allowed to use
> "long long" without generating a warning.

I'm not comfortable with such rules, fwiw.
It's just more arcane baggage to have to remember and follow.

>
>  The use of "long long" and "unsigned long long"
> is discouraged as it is not available in all C compilers
> if I understood the definitions in defs.h around line 112.

I wonder how old that is.

>  Another possible use of LONGEST and ULONGEST
> is also to be able to cope with 128-bit integers if these
> are used in GDB later.

Think bigger.
LONGEST,ULONGEST are gdb-specific, and there is nothing in reading
leb128 values that is gdb-specific.

Plus a lot of code uses them with the assumption that they're 64 bits,
having them be 128 bits is probably not workable.

We've been debating whether to move to C++, and yet we can't even move
to C99. :-(