From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11066 invoked by alias); 1 May 2005 21:13:11 -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 10992 invoked from network); 1 May 2005 21:13:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.66) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 1 May 2005 21:13:06 -0000 Received: from zaretski (IGLD-80-230-71-109.inter.net.il [80.230.71.109]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.6-GR) with ESMTP id BCR82240 (AUTH halo1); Mon, 2 May 2005 00:12:43 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 21:13:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Andrew Cagney Message-ID: <01c54e92$Blat.v2.4$5cf24460@zahav.net.il> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 CC: mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <42753958.70109@gnu.org> (message from Andrew Cagney on Sun, 01 May 2005 16:17:28 -0400) Subject: Re: [commit] Use bfd_byte in value.h Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <42710E90.3030300@gnu.org> <200504281919.j3SJJKF1011501@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <42715EE8.5070704@gnu.org> <01c54c8a$Blat.v2.4$ffbe8140@zahav.net.il> <42753958.70109@gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00023.txt.bz2 > Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 16:17:28 -0400 > From: Andrew Cagney > CC: mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > Eli, > > Last time this came up I recommeded separating out the idea of gdb_byte > and proposed more formally. How is this going? Sorry, I'm not sure I understand (or maybe I forgot). Can you please point me to the message with your proposal? > In the mean time though (then and now) I'll use bfd_byte as that lets me > move this code forward addressing the more immediate problem of not even > compiling with -Werror on GCC 4. With that done, i'm pretty sure that > we'll find the follow-on task of s/bfd_byte/gdb_byte/ trivial. I'd rather discuss first and decide, then implement. This way, you won't need to s/bfd_byte/gdb_byte/, however trivial. The discussion should not last long enough to delay the solution for GCC 4: after all, it seems like a very simple issue. With any luck, we could agree on something in a day or two.