From a3012272b0820f86cd29a35aee2fcce1ad32053a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jim Kingdon Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 14:05:16 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] * gdbtypes.h (struct type): Fix comment about what units the TYPE_LENGTH is in. --- gdb/ChangeLog | 5 +++++ gdb/gdbtypes.h | 12 ++++++++++-- 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/gdb/ChangeLog b/gdb/ChangeLog index 9902cb1ed3..a1c99b8896 100644 --- a/gdb/ChangeLog +++ b/gdb/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,8 @@ +Tue Mar 14 05:52:36 1995 Jim Kingdon (kingdon@lioth.cygnus.com) + + * gdbtypes.h (struct type): Fix comment about what units the + TYPE_LENGTH is in. + Mon Mar 13 18:27:25 1995 Stan Shebs * ch-valprint.c (annotate.h): Include. diff --git a/gdb/gdbtypes.h b/gdb/gdbtypes.h index c6b9551fa7..63a8e530b3 100644 --- a/gdb/gdbtypes.h +++ b/gdb/gdbtypes.h @@ -178,8 +178,16 @@ struct type char *tag_name; - /* Length, in units of TARGET_CHAR_BIT bits, - of storage for a value of this type */ + /* Length of storage for a value of this type. Various places pass + this to memcpy and such, meaning it must be in units of + HOST_CHAR_BIT. Various other places expect they can calculate + addresses by adding it and such, meaning it must be in units of + TARGET_CHAR_BIT. For some DSP targets, in which HOST_CHAR_BIT + will (presumably) be 8 and TARGET_CHAR_BIT will be (say) 32, this + is a problem. One fix would be to make this field in bits + (requiring that it always be a multiple of HOST_CHAR_BIT and + TARGET_CHAR_BIT)--the other choice would be to make it + consistently in units of HOST_CHAR_BIT. */ unsigned length; -- 2.34.1