Re: [PATCH 0/7] Support reading/writing memory on architectures with non 8-bits bytes

[<Paul_Koning@Dell.com>]

> ...
>>> I would assume that somebody developing for a system with 16-bits byte would be very
>>> well aware of that fact. It is quite fundamental. They won't be shocked if the
>>> debugger shows 16-bits when they asked to read 1 byte. Quite the opposite actually,
>>> it will feel like a natural extension of the compiler.
>> 
>> What I have before my eyes is a user who debugs several different
>> platforms, and therefore doesn't immerse themselves in this world of
>> different meanings for too long times.
> 
> I understand your concern.  The term "byte" is probably set in stone as 8-bits for pretty
> much everybody, so trying to redefine it as variable length would probably cause more harm
> than good.

But if you work on several platforms, you would reasonably be expected to understand each of them.  Debugging on A, B, and C with a working knowledge only of A isn’t very realistic.

8 bits == byte is certainly the predominant modern usage, but it hasn’t always been that way and even today it apparently isn’t quite universal.  GCC used to support architectures that did not do 8-bit byte memory addressing, though that capability seems to have faded away in the past couple of years.

	paul