duane> (3) and thus, target addresses are generally equal to - or duane> smaller then the host "unsigned integers"
zach> This is why we have intptr_t. The code shouldn't care. zach> It's a bug if it does. I believe you are mistaken, what you are looking for is: TARGET_intptr_t not HOST_intptr_t, which circles back around to my earlier point about not having a TARGET_CORE_ADDR type - and a function to print a TARGET_CORE_ADDR. duane> Since our *basic* assumption of the host platform is at least duane> a "32bit> unsigned int" A simple cast is valid here. duane> Are you suggesting that our *basic* host assumption is wrong? zach> If we want OpenOCD to work on more C99-compatible targets, yes. I believe you mean hosts. I assert that is specifically *not* a goal of openocd to build and run openocd on *HOSTS* where the host basic compiler types "int" and "unsigned int" are *less*then* then 32bits. True of false? -Duane. _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
