From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-37904-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 32421 invoked by alias); 28 Jan 2005 20:21:16 -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 32362 invoked from network); 28 Jan 2005 20:21:11 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 28 Jan 2005 20:21:11 -0000
Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl [192.168.0.2])
	by sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j0SKL8EW012900;
	Fri, 28 Jan 2005 21:21:08 +0100 (CET)
Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.12.6p3/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j0SKL8jM001962;
	Fri, 28 Jan 2005 21:21:08 +0100 (CET)
	(envelope-from kettenis@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl)
Received: (from kettenis@localhost)
	by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.12.6p3/8.12.6/Submit) id j0SKL8ho001959;
	Fri, 28 Jan 2005 21:21:08 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:21:00 -0000
Message-Id: <200501282021.j0SKL8ho001959@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
From: Mark Kettenis <kettenis@gnu.org>
To: cagney@gnu.org
CC: eliz@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
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
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/msg00285.txt.bz2

   Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 13:48:14 -0500
   From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>

   Eli,

   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.

You can constify without introducing bfd_byte.

Mark