This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Saturday 17 September 2011 00:13:10, John Spencer wrote:On 09/17/2011 01:00 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:These are only built natively on solaris and aix respectively, so let's just leave them alone.
I expected it to be desirable for a product in industrial use to be standard-compliant and not invoking undefined behavior.Those files are tied to those platforms' thread_db/libc implementations. There's absolutely no need to handle some other hipotetical libc that defines pthread_t diferently there. If it appears, we'll handle it.
Chances are, some other changes would be necessary to make it really work, not just build.
i disagree. adding a proper solution once is superior to creating dozens of special case hacks.pthread_t could legally be a struct, which you can't just cast to a long.So just cast it to long, and you're done.thread-db.c: In function 'find_one_thread': thread-db.c:295:7: error: format '%ld' expects type 'long int', but argument 3 has type 'thread_t' thread-db.c: In function 'attach_thread': thread-db.c:335:7: error: format '%ld' expects type 'long int', but argument 3 has type 'thread_t' thread-db.c:341:9: error: format '%ld' expects type 'long int', but argument 2 has type 'thread_t'
No need to complicate things for an hipotetical scenario. The set of libc's in existence is finite. If we were to handle a struct pthread_t, we'd need to be able to print it, and so we'd need some libc specific way to do it, something autoconf'ed. There's no need to invent work.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |