From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14108 invoked by alias); 23 May 2012 14:46:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 14096 invoked by uid 22791); 23 May 2012 14:46:38 -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 14:46:23 +0000 Received: by vbbey12 with SMTP id ey12so5982281vbb.0 for ; Wed, 23 May 2012 07:46:22 -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=G65faFlBKZqbr6UWyoR+amFL/o1hDmWoq1N+apIrKlE=; b=NusYFWkgZTy4tSHsK+x9FWx+vq4DLrNJqQT/IEAZYAi85XD1HL4TCLFFGF2gRKoCA3 p1aHDOH1u65n3aha/k847FfUAdKC/dnKULBXMjQYHr5Y7gv1YG3UK7EPyTuhBLeY/tlD FWzdPa76wDyKfahV80GzFCgfvuulu1qMQFVhLMnL19sN/tHm9lWtLLjSzkfZOI/O1WqN FbxJQgpK9HYQuVoAE5HJkwBjsVFwZGNO/HhZjyrRRBmPPdGP6fCSHyDE24Kc+4xaJGlE sIqFpW5dKziQ7tTTzwrc0nEHJFtgFfCIPZdncaqGhbbsHakTzNfRJgQn1FGu6dh4s1pf AfGg== Received: by 10.220.214.148 with SMTP id ha20mr3143390vcb.5.1337784382403; Wed, 23 May 2012 07:46:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.214.148 with SMTP id ha20mr3143385vcb.5.1337784382295; Wed, 23 May 2012 07:46:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.172.166 with HTTP; Wed, 23 May 2012 07:46:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4fbc9d77.0853b40a.641e.ffff90dbSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> References: <20120523015503.GA25312@sourceware.org> <4fbc9d77.0853b40a.641e.ffff90dbSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 14:46:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: RE: New ARI warning Wed May 23 01:55:03 UTC 2012 From: Doug Evans To: Pierre Muller Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-System-Of-Record: true X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm+OtWIviqbP+EnGkbahIijBZn2GdD3rppwLcaJ9HYCcJ0jbX1yL56kB3ZT1MZB8h3fDf684XALrs5bm9oVUMLeKmy3MjiFeXMcWYqLLGFmXg3ffV9mwjrKBH8l10C9JZdaZq/EeYeaI5CMgTNavRMOBr2MGA== 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/msg00894.txt.bz2 On May 23, 2012 1:19 AM, "Pierre Muller" wrote: > > =A0As a possible ARI maintainer I would like to clarify > things here: > =A0"long long" and "unsigned long long" > are used in lots of native files, and they are > OK in those context. > > =A0In fact, one of the improvements I have in mind is > to restrain some ARI rules, like this one to > GDB common files. > =A0This 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. > > =A0The 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. > =A0Another 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. :-(