From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <java-patches-return-16632-listarch-java-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 15884 invoked by alias); 28 Jun 2006 15:45:13 -0000
Received: (qmail 15875 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Jun 2006 15:45:13 -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; Wed, 28 Jun 2006 15:45:12 +0000
Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) 	by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k5SFjAe0027310; 	Wed, 28 Jun 2006 11:45:10 -0400
Received: from pobox.toronto.redhat.com (pobox.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.4]) 	by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k5SFj9ce000918; 	Wed, 28 Jun 2006 11:45:09 -0400
Received: from [172.16.14.67] (towel.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.67]) 	by pobox.toronto.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k5SFj8ve026763; 	Wed, 28 Jun 2006 11:45:09 -0400
Message-ID: <44A2A404.9050508@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 15:45:00 -0000
From: Bryce McKinlay <mckinlay@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20051025)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com>
CC: Ranjit Mathew <rmathew@gmail.com>, java-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [MinGW] RFC/RFA: Get Partial Stack Traces on Windows
References: <44A02481.207@gmail.com> 	<44A1EECF.2030303@gmail.com> 	<e7u1p4$svv$1@sea.gmane.org> 	<44A299FD.3040308@redhat.com> <17570.40176.239475.278312@dell.pink>
In-Reply-To: <17570.40176.239475.278312@dell.pink>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact java-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:java-patches-subscribe@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:java-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:java-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>, <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: java-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2006-q2/txt/msg00516.txt.bz2

Andrew Haley wrote:
> Bryce McKinlay writes:
>  > 
>  > Hmm, is there some reason we can't just use uintptr_t? Doesn't GCC 
>  > ensure it is always available?
>
> No.  It isn't part of gcc, it's part of whatever C library is being
> used, and it's not guaranteed to be there.  It's safer to do it this
> way.
>   

Fair enough. Ranjit, can we call it _Jv_uintptr_t, then?

Bryce