From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1050 invoked by alias); 21 Dec 2012 09:36:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 989 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Dec 2012 09:36:52 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,TW_GP X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-wg0-f53.google.com (HELO mail-wg0-f53.google.com) (74.125.82.53) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 09:36:47 +0000 Received: by mail-wg0-f53.google.com with SMTP id ei8so2025823wgb.20 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 01:36:45 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.20.109 with SMTP id m13mr22190239wie.16.1356082605859; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 01:36:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.153.132 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 01:36:45 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <50D42CAB.4090704@oracle.com> References: <50D42823.9030601@oracle.com> <50D42CAB.4090704@oracle.com> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 09:36:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [patch libstdc++]: Fix LLP64 pointer-size issues for cxxabi, eh_alloc, and hash_bytes From: Kai Tietz To: Paolo Carlini Cc: GCC Patches , "libstdc++" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-12/txt/msg01290.txt.bz2 2012/12/21 Paolo Carlini : > Hi, > > > On 12/21/2012 10:16 AM, Kai Tietz wrote: >> >> Well, I thought it is always present for gcc due gstdint.h header, > > As far as I know, that project isn't finished yet, there are still targets > which neither provide the header, neither GCC synthetizes it. See also > "dg-require-effective-target stdint_types". > >> but well, using ptrdiff_t here instead would be ok too IMHO, and later is >> compatible to none C99-systems. Ok, with that change (and remove of later >> cast to ptrdiff_t for it)? > > Are we 100% sure that, besides the targets we know well and love, elsewhere > long is always == ptrdiff_t? > > Paolo. well, issue isn't that 'long' is always 'ptrdiff_t'. As this is indeed the wrong assumption here. As we treat here pointers later-one as pointer-diff, it doesn't make any difference, even if pointer-size might exceed 'ptrdiff_t' (well size_t would have here the same issue, and all in all we lack a longptr_t type-definition in standard), then we still don't change behavior AFAICS. Kai