Re: [PATCH 1/3] gdb: Added builtin types for 24 bit integers.

[Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@polymtl.ca>]

On 2018-08-24 11:29, John Darrington wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 11:09:40AM -0400, Simon Marchi wrote:
> 
>      I'm not sure I understand.  I was only talking about the 
> definition of
>      the int24_t and uint24_t types, not the handling of 
> DW_EH_PE_udata3.
>      From what I read, the C99 standard mandates that the 8, 16, 32 and 
> 64
>      variants of the intX_t/uintX_t types exist.  Other types (with 
> other
>      values of X) would be extensions.  That's why I thought it would 
> make
>      sense to define that in the s12z-specific gdbarches only.  In the 
> end I
>      don't really mind, but it just looks like the "clean" way to do it 
> and
>      doesn't seem really more difficult.  Can you see if the attached 
> diff
>      (applied on top of your series) work for you?
> 
> 
> Yes, I see no reason why that shouldn't work.  Like you say, C99 et. 
> al.
> doesn't require uint24_t but doesn't prohibit it either.  I just
> thought, that it makes sense to keep all these type definitions in the
> same place so as to avoid the next 24 bit arch having to copy this
> definition.   But I don't have a strong opinion either way.

I see, then that's fine with mean to have it in gdbarch.

Simon