From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9878D385B50F for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2023 22:33:41 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 9878D385B50F Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark.ca Received: from [10.0.0.11] (unknown [217.28.27.60]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 359A61E0D3; Wed, 11 Jan 2023 17:33:40 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=simark.ca; s=mail; t=1673476421; bh=BYzBXKiKd1HRhp+1p+Yh8etoPu3WvjwRGG9PcnVgmC8=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=b8AGLgQoin0GITJhUCP7UuTKuABgnRKe0qe6smylLP6k8/mz0Eb5GvHQGwzEybgtc dLtdhianv1RbiyNBe2pqbJ/4DSZ6s92oK9yrKGhbc+ulR6Jl4Pv54WaMWaWpFqfmGc n061HfV9zjdK8VreGjcOMMq5bl77mPgTcSfB0WJM= Message-ID: Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 17:33:40 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.6.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Increase size of main_type::nfields Content-Language: en-US To: Tom Tromey , Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches Cc: Tom Tromey References: <20230111204418.376620-1-tromey@adacore.com> <061d47f1-fbe7-4d2f-6919-811061d0be9b@simark.ca> <87tu0w69rp.fsf@tromey.com> From: Simon Marchi In-Reply-To: <87tu0w69rp.fsf@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On 1/11/23 16:28, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches writes: > >>> - short nfields; >>> + int m_nfields; > > Simon> Should it be unsigned? I don't recall this field needing to be > Simon> negative. > > I considered it, but the accessor returns int and the setter accepts > int. So, changing it would perhaps result in a larger patch, but the > only benefit would be that one could have more than 2 billion constants. > Even in the realm of generated code this seemed implausible to me. > > I could take a look if you think it's worthwhile. I do agree it makes > more sense, if that helps. It's not really important from a practical point of view. But also, I'd be surprised if it broke anything, even without touching the callers. Simon