From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1624 invoked by alias); 28 Jan 2005 11:43:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 1482 invoked from network); 28 Jan 2005 11:43:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.66) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 28 Jan 2005 11:43:06 -0000 Received: from zaretski (IGLD-83-130-209-29.inter.net.il [83.130.209.29]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.6-GR) with ESMTP id AKE13433 (AUTH halo1); Fri, 28 Jan 2005 13:43:04 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:43:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Message-ID: <01c5052e$Blat.v2.4$2b4f9f00@zahav.net.il> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 CC: Mark Kettenis In-reply-to: <200501280845.j0S8jkZx000823@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> (message from Mark Kettenis on Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:45:46 +0100 (CET)) Subject: Re: [commit] Tighten memory read/write methods Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <41F94AE7.4020405@gnu.org> <200501272103.j0RL3TWS001805@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <41F973EA.6030305@gnu.org> <200501280845.j0S8jkZx000823@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> X-SW-Source: 2005-01/txt/msg00276.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:45:46 +0100 (CET) > From: Mark Kettenis > CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > OK, I can understand your rationale for seperating const-correctness > from other transformations; but then why don't you seperate the > (unsigned) char -> bfd_byte transformation too? I'm all for > consistent use of 'bfd_byte *' as the canonical way to point to a > buffer interpreted as seperate bytes. However, I think that pointers > to generic bits of memory should be 'void *' (which specific bits of > code might want to cast to 'bfd_byte *' if they're going to interpret > the bytes individually). Doing the mind-numbing conversion means that > we'll have to re-evaluate all occurances of 'bfd_byte' again later. I don't like the use of bfd_byte either. I think we shouldn't use BFD types in our sources for data types that don't have anything to do with the BFD library. If, for some reason, "void *" somehow doesn't fit the bill (and I'd like to see evidence to that before I agree), I'd suggest our own data type, like gdb_byte or some such. P.S. IMHO, this is one more example of a situation where a discussion that preceded commits would be in order. I don't know about others, but as far as I'm concerned, when such controversial changes are committed without discussions, it doesn't help me to feel a part of a team. (And please don't tell me that Andrew had a right to do this: this is not about rights, but about using them indiscriminantly.)