From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11326 invoked by alias); 2 Dec 2003 07:53:36 -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 11033 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2003 07:53:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO barry.mail.mindspring.net) (207.69.200.25) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Dec 2003 07:53:21 -0000 Received: from user-119a90a.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.36.10] helo=berman.michael-chastain.com) by barry.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1AR5LR-00016q-00; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 02:53:17 -0500 Received: by berman.michael-chastain.com (Postfix, from userid 502) id 4BD444B359; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 02:53:27 -0500 (EST) To: brobecker@gnat.com, ezannoni@redhat.com, rth@redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] OSF/1 - "next" over prologueless function call Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Message-Id: <20031202075327.4BD444B359@berman.michael-chastain.com> Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 07:53:00 -0000 From: mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain) X-SW-Source: 2003-12/txt/msg00044.txt.bz2 Hi Joel, > ... I see some target-specific code uses a grab-bag field of the > minimal_symbol structure to store some target-specific information > (field "info"). I don't particularly fancy typeless fields like this, > but, just thinking aloud, we could add a new fields holding some flags > which would be defined in gdb in an manor independent of the target. I would like to clean up the "info" field. The only thing it's used for is these target-specific bit flags. It's really stupid that it's a "void *"! http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2003-11/msg00094.html When I get some more cycles, and Elena gets some more cycles, I'll bring it up for discussion again. Michael C too tired to work, not too tired to blabber