From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-39151-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 16769 invoked by alias); 2 May 2005 19:12:41 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 16635 invoked from network); 2 May 2005 19:12:31 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.66)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 2 May 2005 19:12:31 -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 BCW19332 (AUTH halo1);
	Mon, 2 May 2005 22:12:04 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 19:12:00 -0000
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
Message-ID: <01c54f4a$Blat.v2.4$a9fc8500@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: <42755FD4.8000009@gnu.org> (message from Andrew Cagney on Sun, 01
	May 2005 19:01:40 -0400)
Subject: Re: [commit] Use bfd_byte in value.h
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
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> <01c54e92$Blat.v2.4$5cf24460@zahav.net.il> <42755FD4.8000009@gnu.org>
X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00054.txt.bz2

> Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 19:01:40 -0400
> From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
> CC: mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> 
> The suggestion of gdb_byte was yours, so it rightfully falls to you to 
> propose more formally on gdb@ (I certaintly don't want to jump in and 
> steal your thunder).  Can we finally do that?

I will happily do whatever it takes, but I'm unsure what you want me
to say there.  That I propose to replace "char *" with "gdb_byte *"?
Somehow, I doubt that this is all you read into ``propose formally''.
But if all you are asking is to start a thread on gdb@, I'll do this.

In any case, I think Mark's question (why not use "void *") is
something that we should discuss first, since if we accept his
recommendation, there will be no need to introduce a new data type.