From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11605 invoked by alias); 29 Mar 2012 22:57:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 11593 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Mar 2012 22:57:25 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 22:57:08 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2TMuuv2020399 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 29 Mar 2012 18:56:56 -0400 Received: from valrhona.uglyboxes.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2TMurdw019514 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 29 Mar 2012 18:56:55 -0400 Message-ID: <4F74E8B5.3000604@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 22:57:00 -0000 From: Keith Seitz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120209 Thunderbird/10.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Roland Schwingel CC: insight@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Compliancy to windows 64bit References: <4F6721AE.1070406@onevision.com> In-Reply-To: <4F6721AE.1070406@onevision.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact insight-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: insight-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-q1/txt/msg00041.txt.bz2 On 03/19/2012 05:08 AM, Roland Schwingel wrote: > Any comments? Is this ok? Wow, I had no idea we were harboring such evil code... Passing host pointers into the interpreter and back again. Eeeew! [Alas, this portion of insight is probably about the oldest...] This whole thing should have been done some other way. [But that's probably not the comment you're attempting to elicit. :-)] Just a nit: > --- gdbtk_orig/generic/gdbtk-stack.c 2012-03-05 09:19:01.000000000 +0100 > +++ gdbtk/generic/gdbtk-stack.c 2012-03-14 11:56:31.851248200 +0100 > @@ -289,7 +289,7 @@ > return TCL_ERROR; > } > > - arguments = (long) clientData; > + arguments = clientData!=NULL?1:0; > > /* Initialize the result pointer to an empty list. */ > This isn't formatted properly. It should be: arguments = clientData != NULL ? 1 : 0; Okay with that change. Keith