This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [unavailable values part 1, 03/17] expose list of available ranges to common code
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 20:39:10 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On Monday 14 February 2011 11:59:39, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> > > +struct mem_range
> > > +{
> > > + /* Lowest address in the range. */
> > > + CORE_ADDR start;
> > > +
> > > + /* Length of the range. */
> > > + int length;
> > > +};
> >
> > Why couldn't GDB become 64bit clean - that is CORE_ADDR length.
>
> Probably a leftover from the value ranges stuff (value lengths
> are ints, and so I made the value range lengths be ints too).
> But I disagree with making it a CORE_ADDR. I think
> lengths should be LONGEST or ULONGEST.
While ULONGEST should work due to this invariant:
ULONGEST_MAX >= CORE_ADDR_MAX
Still in which case an inferior object size does not fit in CORE_ADDR?
I do not think it can happen, CORE_ADDR should be OK for inferior size_t.
Thanks,
Jan