From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 110169 invoked by alias); 24 Aug 2018 20:37:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 110157 invoked by uid 89); 24 Aug 2018 20:37:36 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:1223 X-HELO: smtp.polymtl.ca Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (HELO smtp.polymtl.ca) (132.207.4.11) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 20:37:35 +0000 Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id w7OKbSo0015316 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 16:37:33 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id B7A381EB43; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 16:37:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from simark.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9676C1E012; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 16:37:27 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 20:37:00 -0000 From: Simon Marchi To: John Darrington Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] gdb: Added builtin types for 24 bit integers. In-Reply-To: <20180824152934.bvs2y2t6py4vbynn@jocasta.intra> References: <20180823173526.26144-1-john@darrington.wattle.id.au> <7b7853c6462d8806bc4a2a743330a382@polymtl.ca> <20180823200349.gxeuad3ms3c2apei@jocasta.intra> <603c98bc68bec04acb84d809c838abb0@polymtl.ca> <20180824061125.7vjvlopdx4bstg4l@jocasta.intra> <0f42f2a6bd5c76d40242043ca8b65cf3@polymtl.ca> <20180824152934.bvs2y2t6py4vbynn@jocasta.intra> Message-ID: <33dfdfe9927a6b163deb502b97910081@polymtl.ca> X-Sender: simon.marchi@polymtl.ca User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.6 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-08/txt/msg00607.txt.bz2 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