From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32407 invoked by alias); 7 Aug 2007 17:04:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 32118 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Aug 2007 17:04:52 -0000 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; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 17:04:44 +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 l77H4e6a031965; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 13:04:40 -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 l77H4eO7002949; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 13:04:40 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ton.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.15]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l77H4XNb010691; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 13:04:34 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 631B1888285; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 10:46:34 -0600 (MDT) To: David Daney Cc: GCJ-patches , GCC Patches , andreast@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [Patch] libffi testsuite: Correct some type specifiers. References: <46B89D13.50708@avtrex.com> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com X-Attribution: Tom Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 17:04:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <46B89D13.50708@avtrex.com> (David Daney's message of "Tue\, 07 Aug 2007 09\:25\:55 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2007-08/txt/msg00445.txt.bz2 >>>>> "David" == David Daney writes: David> Whilst hacking things up to get MIPS64 working better in libffi, I David> came across several test cases where structure elements were declared David> as type 'int' but the libffi type specifier identified them as uint32. David> This patch corrects some (but probably not all) of these incongruities. I think a patch to fix a disparity like this would qualify as obvious. However... if the struct definition says 'int', and the test case is says ffi_type_sint32, then that seems like a bug in itself. There's no guarantee that int == 32 bits. Wouldn't it be more correct to use ffi_type_sint? Tom