Re: RFC: Patch to allow compilation by Sun cc

[Michael Snyder <msnyder at cygnus dot com>]

Paul Hilfinger wrote:
> 
>  > 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?

Yep -- we can change it back after that change takes place.
This will get us settled until then (with Andrew's approval).


>  >     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 (:->). 

I didn't mean that sizeof (char) is never used -- just that it isn't used
in connection with MAX_REGISTER_RAW_SIZE or REGISTER_BYTES.  The situation
is not beautiful now -- I just don't want to make it any uglier.