RE: [RFA, 3 of 3] save/restore process record, part 3 (save/restore)

["Pierre Muller" <muller at ics dot u-strasbg dot fr>]

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De?: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org [mailto:gdb-patches-
> owner@sourceware.org] De la part de Eli Zaretskii
> Envoyé?: Friday, October 23, 2009 12:06 PM
> À?: Pierre Muller
> Cc?: ppluzhnikov@google.com; msnyder@vmware.com; teawater@gmail.com;
> gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> Objet?: Re: [RFA, 3 of 3] save/restore process record, part 3
> (save/restore)
> 
> > From: "Pierre Muller" <muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr>
> > Cc: "'Hui Zhu'" <teawater@gmail.com>, "'Eli Zaretskii'"
> <eliz@gnu.org>,
> >         <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
> > Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:52:27 +0200
> >
> >  Furthermore, there is a '%ll' rule
> > in ARI that states that:
> > Do not use printf("%ll"), instead use printf("%s",phex()) to dump a
> `long
> > long' value
> > Shouldn't this also concern '%lu'?
> 
> There is a difference: %lu is defined by C89, while %ll is only
> codified by C9X.  GDB does not yet require a C9X compiler.

  Whoops, OK, %ll is for 'long long' types,
whereas %lu is for 'unsigned long'...
  Consider this part of my email as unfounded.

Sorry, all
and thanks for the explanation, Eli.

Pierre Muller
... still a poor in C language :(