From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32657 invoked by alias); 29 Jan 2005 10:33:54 -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 32577 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2005 10:33:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 29 Jan 2005 10:33:46 -0000 Received: from zaretski (IGLD-83-130-209-29.inter.net.il [83.130.209.29]) by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.6-GR) with ESMTP id DQK64401 (AUTH halo1); Sat, 29 Jan 2005 12:33:34 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 10:33:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Andrew Cagney Message-ID: <01c505ed$Blat.v2.4$9bdbf9c0@zahav.net.il> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, kettenis@gnu.org In-reply-to: <41FA88EE.2030109@gnu.org> (message from Andrew Cagney on Fri, 28 Jan 2005 13:48:14 -0500) Subject: Re: [commit] Tighten memory read/write methods Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <41F94AE7.4020405@gnu.org> <200501272103.j0RL3TWS001805@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <41F973EA.6030305@gnu.org> <200501280845.j0S8jkZx000823@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <01c5052e$Blat.v2.4$2b4f9f00@zahav.net.il> <41FA88EE.2030109@gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 2005-01/txt/msg00295.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 13:48:14 -0500 > From: Andrew Cagney > Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Mark Kettenis > > 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.