From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23196 invoked by alias); 5 Mar 2013 17:33:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 23185 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Mar 2013 17:33:49 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.9 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,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-ve0-f182.google.com (HELO mail-ve0-f182.google.com) (209.85.128.182) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Mar 2013 17:33:43 +0000 Received: by mail-ve0-f182.google.com with SMTP id ox1so5999780veb.27 for ; Tue, 05 Mar 2013 09:33:42 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=7EwK81kN/XYxxu/ClSBPBMbWDgDwUn98i5HS8hmoABk=; b=fRDw7+rQJ3ywmFiweQqEyMuo/e4o2aDMLE41qlZIW8Er/VWCdiwcW06FsgC2wPYWSR X2qxq1GQ96QeugMEi2Ie1FTiT7GlETb8ypv6/DE/Mwm2MDaPR3B1KmGwfsEuq7xqEojL nMHIxEOEmd1mM3lVasCak7SJEUVBJ7+MdzrfyQF5gceXGz++LoRc2VwqXzBwktS+NzEj 7c0flapvZD7KqXW2EYpstvYMGUr9QFFTcYmZ3p7d1TlmY6Zi3tBMWjIkLL66zWpZL3pu 45Izjqu6nA/dzmOwTGKrhwGZDJQOtgbPYP+r3ZFQMXfjOknE7YdQhZkei+TQCgakaqIo T/Zw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.58.50.197 with SMTP id e5mr5187943veo.47.1362504822428; Tue, 05 Mar 2013 09:33:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.205.72 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 09:33:42 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <5135EC1D.9030601@redhat.com> References: <1360934868-5807-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <1360934868-5807-2-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <51349F6E.8020101@redhat.com> <5134B192.8080507@codesourcery.com> <5134C9DD.2070205@redhat.com> <5135A26A.6030608@codesourcery.com> <5135EC1D.9030601@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 17:33:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] use zuinteger_unlimited for some remote commands From: Doug Evans To: Pedro Alves Cc: Yao Qi , gdb-patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmfXr9jUaLSya+6qa9wZZdKcucIil9im9oI7SkOTVXMzEjvDY2Zn90yMXb4m+5lZ83uH+zm+LIIcX5JHvUI8PbqGlefxhPKSIXGL2vwwT3X3nz1+LEJ94BDdEputmOdVr+6ef+f4Ozi/qG9uH+rnbR6si6HSKEhpjOk9L+sw7nTaR1OKzRmbhDm2Ev+iiWcd0ZdniHUkR1RylifZNKhKFe7T3s8Sw== 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: 2013-03/txt/msg00156.txt.bz2 On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:59 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: > We could just as > well treat the variable internally as the correct type of > unsigned int, and handle UINT_MAX as unlimited internally too. Part of me is weeping that we didn't take this route. If uinteger is in the name, anything else just invites problems, if not tears ... :-)