This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFC: Patch to allow compilation by Sun cc
- To: Michael Snyder <msnyder at cygnus dot com>
- Subject: Re: RFC: Patch to allow compilation by Sun cc
- From: Paul Hilfinger <hilfingr at EECS dot Berkeley dot EDU>
- Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 17:20:58 -0800
- cc: ac131313 at cygnus dot com, gdb-patches at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- Reply-To: Hilfinger at cs dot berkeley dot edu
> Would you both find this modification of the patch acceptable?
> I've made the following two changes:
>
> 1) Made all three versions of software_single_step use unsigned int
> as the first parameter (and included Paul's cast to unsigned int
> in the #define in all three cases).
No strong feelings, but if we actually do move the target_signal
declaration to defs.h, isn't the obvious change to modify the
definition of sparc_software_single_step in tm-sparc.h to take an
enum target_signal as its first argument, and then not change sparc-tdep.c?
> 2) Removed the " * sizeof (char)" from all the alloca calls, since
> it is never used in other contexts where these constants are sent
> to alloca (not to introduce a new inconsistancy).
Again, no strong feelings on this, but I am forced to disagree with
your premise. In fact, I only decided to add this fussy pendantic
little suffix after greping the source and finding, e.g.,
breakpoint.c:5748: blocks_searched = (char *) alloca (BLOCKVECTOR_NBLOCKS (bl) * sizeof (char));
breakpoint.c:5749: memset (blocks_searched, 0, BLOCKVECTOR_NBLOCKS (bl) * sizeof (char));
stack.c:1376: blocks_printed = (char *) alloca (BLOCKVECTOR_NBLOCKS (bl) * sizeof (char));
stack.c:1377: memset (blocks_printed, 0, BLOCKVECTOR_NBLOCKS (bl) * sizeof (char));
varobj.c:1246: * sizeof (char));
varobj.c:1821: name = (char *) xmalloc (1 + len * sizeof (char));
varobj.c:1842: name = (char *) xmalloc ((strlen (parent->name) + 2) * sizeof (char));
win32-nat.c:539: DWORD size = event->fUnicode ? sizeof (WCHAR) : sizeof (char);
... and then trying to be consistent (:->). But, as I say, no strong
preference.
Paul