From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13035 invoked by alias); 2 Aug 2007 12:37:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 13026 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Aug 2007 12:37:44 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DK_POLICY_SIGNSOME,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 12:37:41 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l72CbcT4030934; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 08:37:38 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [10.11.255.20]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l72CbcG8028131; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 08:37:38 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (sebastian-int.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.221]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l72CbbOo030109; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 08:37:37 -0400 Message-ID: <46B1D016.909@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 12:37:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070530) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Wielaard CC: frysk@sourceware.org Subject: Re: putting Ptrace back to 64-bit References: <46B14863.60601@redhat.com> <1186043998.15044.47.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> In-Reply-To: <1186043998.15044.47.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact frysk-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: frysk-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-q3/txt/msg00262.txt.bz2 Mark Wielaard wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 22:58 -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >> I don't understand the rationale behind this change: >> > > It was proposed and explained as a follow up for the LogicalMemoryBuffer > under "A couple of things to note, questions and upcoming work" at: > http://sourceware.org/ml/frysk/2007-q3/msg00163.html > And the rationale was again added when the actual patch to implement it > was posted: http://sourceware.org/ml/frysk/2007-q3/msg00216.html > Please run such things directly past me. > >> It forces calling code to contend with Java's bone-head "int" is 32-bits >> and be damed. >> > > That is Java's 32-bit bonehead ism. This exports a 64-bit interface; we'll keep it that way. > No, the patch carefully only changes those calls that take a 32-bit > (actually positive "int" byte[]) container in the first place so that > the calling code is consistent and calls to these methods get flagged at > compile time if they provide inconsistent arguments. None of the > arguments that actually are 64-bit were changed of course. > > Cheers, > > Mark >