From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20125 invoked by alias); 6 Jan 2009 03:25:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 20110 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Jan 2009 03:25:42 -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; Tue, 06 Jan 2009 03:25:35 +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 n063NV27006136; Mon, 5 Jan 2009 22:23:31 -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 n063NVax017937; Mon, 5 Jan 2009 22:23:31 -0500 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-12-235.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.12.235]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n063NUS3002310; Mon, 5 Jan 2009 22:23:31 -0500 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 0AFDAC880EC; Mon, 5 Jan 2009 20:23:29 -0700 (MST) To: "Joseph S. Myers" Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFA: fix PR 7286 References: From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: Tom Tromey Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 03:25:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Joseph S. Myers's message of "Tue\, 6 Jan 2009 02\:48\:49 +0000 \(UTC\)") 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/msg00039.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Joseph" == Joseph S Myers writes: >> According to C99, such a constant is never unsigned, but instead is of >> the next wider type (from int, long, and long long) which can >> represent its value. Joseph> Note that this is something that changed in C99; in C90 such constants Joseph> (wider than signed long) would be unsigned. Thanks. This does raise the question of what C variant gdb targets, or ought to target. We could even have them all, with "set lang c99". The same question arises for C++. I think if we are going to have a single variant for a given language, then gdb ought to follow the most recently published standard. Tom