[RFC] Accomodate 64-bit msymbols in expressions

[Michael Snyder]

Kevin Buettner wrote:
> 
> On Feb 16,  4:03pm, Michael Snyder wrote:
> 
> > The following change is motivated by the fact that the addresses of
> > minimal symbols currently get truncated to 32 bits in expressions.
> >
> > Does this look badly wrong to anybody?
> 
> Not badly wrong.  The only nit that I can pick is...
> 
> > !   /* Let's make the type big enough to hold a 64-bit address.  */
> > !   write_exp_elt_type (builtin_type_long_long);
> 
> ...that it might be preferable to use builtin_type_CORE_ADDR instead.
> 
> (I.e, think about what happens if TARGET_LONG_LONG_BIT == 32, but
> TARGET_ADDR_BIT == 64.)

That's a good idea.  Thanks.