Re: [commit] Tighten memory read/write methods

["Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 13:48:14 -0500
> From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Mark Kettenis <kettenis@gnu.org>
> 
> Like I said to Mark:
> 
> > We can certainly debate the merits of ISO vs BFD and bfd_byte vs void [vs gdb_byte], however lets keep that debate separate to my current task - getting constants sufficiently propogated for me to do my next value.h commit which in turn finishes DW_OP_piece. 

(Please don't assume that I didn't read your messages, nor that
reiterating them will help resolving the issues.)

If finishing DW_OP_piece causes contamination of GDB sources with
extraneous identifiers that should not be there, I object to your
doing that without asking for consensus.

In other words, these are indeed two separate issues, but since the
side effect of your solution is much broader than what is strictly
needed for DW_OP_piece, we should discuss and decide on the bfd_byte
thingy separately, _before_ it is used, not _after_.

So please stop committing changes that spread bfd_byte across the
sources until we discuss this and come to some consensus.  You've
heard 2 maintainers object to that, and yet you still continue with
committing more and more of the changes to which we object.