From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7265 invoked by alias); 22 Feb 2004 18:49:32 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 7258 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2004 18:49:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mudkip.internal.custodix.com) (193.121.186.60) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Feb 2004 18:49:32 -0000 Received: from snorlax.internal.custodix.com (snorlax.internal.custodix.com [10.32.2.14]) by mudkip.internal.custodix.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i1MInUFn004762 for ; Sun, 22 Feb 2004 19:49:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (dlucq@localhost) by snorlax.internal.custodix.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) with ESMTP id i1MInU6S014095 for ; Sun, 22 Feb 2004 19:49:30 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 18:49:00 -0000 From: Daniel Lucq X-X-Sender: dlucq@snorlax.internal.custodix.com To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: exec_file_hook_count data-type Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00615.txt.bz2 Hi all, I suppose exec_file_hook_count in corefile.c should always be >= 0, so why not make it an unsigned instead of an int? (yeah, I suppose this is a minor issue, but still :-)). Regards, Daniel Lucq --- corefile.c.orig Sun Feb 22 19:44:17 2004 +++ corefile.c Sun Feb 22 19:45:18 2004 @@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ hook_type exec_file_display_hook; /* the original hook */ static hook_type *exec_file_extra_hooks; /* array of additional hooks */ -static int exec_file_hook_count = 0; /* size of array */ +static unsigned exec_file_hook_count = 0; /* size of array */ /* Binary file diddling handle for the core file. */ @@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ static void call_extra_exec_file_hooks (char *filename) { - int i; + unsigned i; for (i = 0; i < exec_file_hook_count; i++) (*exec_file_extra_hooks[i]) (filename);