From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23499 invoked by alias); 2 Oct 2009 17:27:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 23446 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Oct 2009 17:27:44 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:27:39 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n92HRFgH023316; Fri, 2 Oct 2009 13:27:15 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n92HREOY022004; Fri, 2 Oct 2009 13:27:14 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n92HRDRp015658; Fri, 2 Oct 2009 13:27:13 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id D511837830D; Fri, 2 Oct 2009 11:27:12 -0600 (MDT) From: Tom Tromey To: Ralf Corsepius Cc: Joel Brobecker , gdb@sourceware.org, Jan Kratochvil Subject: Re: GDB 6.8.92 available for testing References: <20090930204828.GB31446@adacore.com> <4AC41F44.1040502@rtems.org> <20091001170744.GC6532@adacore.com> <4AC4E4F6.5080500@rtems.org> <4AC630C8.5090508@rtems.org> Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:27:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4AC630C8.5090508@rtems.org> (Ralf Corsepius's message of "Fri, 02 Oct 2009 18:56:40 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2009-10/txt/msg00048.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Ralf" == Ralf Corsepius writes: Ralf> But I presume, I can consider the later one to be rejected - This Ralf> doesn't help anybody, but ... you want it this way, so be it. Tom> I think 'len' should be 'unsigned int', not 'size_t'. Ralf> I think, len should be size_t, like any "sizeof"'s return type. TYPE_LENGTH does not expand to sizeof. Ralf> Apart of this, I can't imagine changing this "int" into "size_t" to Ralf> have any negative impact. Yes, I agree. I have a slight preference for locals such as this to be declared with the correct-according-to-gdb type. Tom