From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27307 invoked by alias); 24 Aug 2007 18:40:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 27289 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Aug 2007 18:40:21 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 18:40:15 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A77D79810C; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 18:40:15 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86BC09810B; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 18:40:15 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IOe4q-0005Uf-U0; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 14:40:12 -0400 Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 18:40:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Mark Kettenis Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: GDB transition to GPLv3 should now be complete Message-ID: <20070824184012.GA19997@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Mark Kettenis , gdb@sourceware.org References: <20070824151251.GG6056@adacore.com> <200708241528.l7OFSgDi030135@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20070824153333.GA30256@caradoc.them.org> <200708241616.l7OGGOhD010090@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20070824165439.GA782@caradoc.them.org> <200708241811.l7OIBHnO027640@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200708241811.l7OIBHnO027640@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-08/txt/msg00202.txt.bz2 On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 08:11:17PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > Well, the problem with this diff is that it actually seems to be a > good idea until you actually start to use it. I thought it was a good > idea, so I put it in my tree. And I threw it out again after a few > days because I was annoyed by the fact that it didn't print strings as > strings in many cases where I was sure it did before. As I said, the > use of "unsigned char *" is very common in string manipulation code. The diff from July, right? I wish you'd mentioned that you'd tried it, back after I posted it - I would have been glad to see specific examples. I still would, if you remember any of them. There are at least three classes of code affected by this: - uses MMX, SSE, or AltiVec - uses unsigned char * for numerical data - uses unsigned char * for strings I've spent hours searching through different bodies of code trying to come up with comparisons here (which I posted during the last discussion). I believe that the first is rapidly increasingly and the other two are about even. I don't want to drop what I believe to be a very useful change without at least finding some compromise. By the way, Jan's patch (which only applies to unsigned char[] and not unsigned char *, leaving GDB in my opinion inconsistent) is in Fedora 7. That's relatively recent but has a lot of users; I don't see any complaints about it in their bugzilla. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery