This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [gdbserver/patch] Z packet support
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: Paul Schlie <schlie at comcast dot net>
- Cc: Orjan Friberg <orjan dot friberg at axis dot com>, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 12:36:04 -0500
- Subject: Re: [gdbserver/patch] Z packet support
- References: <20050130153812.GA5311@nevyn.them.org> <BE226E0D.8D3C%schlie@comcast.net>
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 10:57:17AM -0500, Paul Schlie wrote:
> > 2. Please re-read the comment; it should not be void *. It is also
> > required that it be harmless for CORE_ADDR to be too large; see
> > MIPS n32 vs n64.
> [ Regarding: And while at it, move CORE_ADDR tweak server.h to wherever
> it likely belongs? (and/or redefine it to void* if more appropriate)? ]
>
> - sorry, it simply seemed implied by your own comment on the subject:
>
> "CORE_ADDR is always a long long in gdbserver, so your sizeof (addr)
> probably doesn't work right for 32-bit targets. I guess sizeof
> (void *) is always right for this, though... at least for the kinds
> of targets gdbserver supports now."
>
> combined with it's own FIXME comment:
>
> /* FIXME: This should probably be autoconf'd for. It's an integer type
> at least the size of a (void *). */
> typedef long long CORE_ADDR;
See the second sentence? :-) It has to be an integer type, which void
* is not. CORE_ADDR has to be at least as large as a target address.
When talking back to GDB, we should endeavour to use the actual size of
a target address, because sometimes 32-bit GDBs will get annoyed when
they receive 64-bit numbers.
> > 3. There are nowhere near enough exported functions to justify
> > proliferating headers.
>
> - sorry, guess I always considered "proliferating headers" as required
> a superior alternative to the maintenance problems which proliferating
> redundant declarations otherwise creates.
I guess I don't understand you. In what way are these declarations
"redundant"?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz