From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15596 invoked by alias); 5 Jan 2009 18:31:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 15586 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Jan 2009 18:31:52 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_MX,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.redhat.com (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:31:47 +0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n05ITiRa018136; Mon, 5 Jan 2009 13:29:44 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n05ITin5029473; Mon, 5 Jan 2009 13:29:44 -0500 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-12-83.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.12.83]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n05IThp7027216; Mon, 5 Jan 2009 13:29:43 -0500 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 0482C50801F; Mon, 5 Jan 2009 11:29:42 -0700 (MST) To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFA: fix PR 9164 References: <200901051729.39325.pedro@codesourcery.com> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: Tom Tromey Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:31:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <200901051729.39325.pedro@codesourcery.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Mon\, 5 Jan 2009 17\:29\:39 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2009-01/txt/msg00028.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: Pedro> I think that m32c will need a hook here. I think that in some Pedro> modes, size_t will be 16-bit, but pointer width 24-bits. Pedro> I wonder if the above shouldn't be a gdbarch method, that defaults to Pedro> what you wrote. Yeah, I do see some gcc ports where size_t depends on the flags. Not m32c, actually, but: ../arm/arm.h:597:#define SIZE_TYPE (TARGET_AAPCS_BASED ? "unsigned int" : "long unsigned int") ... all the other conditionally-defined ones seem to be decided by the size of pointers. I'll look into this more. Tom