From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
To: Michael Snyder <msnyder@cygnus.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA] gdb extension for Harvard architectures
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 11:06:00 -0000
Message-id: <3BBB5391.4010001@cygnus.com>
References: <3BB4D843.A92818B9@cygnus.com> <3BB512A9.6050801@cygnus.com> <3BB5195F.6050603@cygnus.com> <3BBB50C0.BD01BF20@cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-10/msg00051.html

> 
> Correct (AFAIK).
> 
> 
>> you could end up printing a
>> value from a completly different address space.
> 
> 
> The above operation works even without my change.  Since (int*) 
> is interpreted as a naturally "data-like" expression, the above
> will give you the int that lives in the data-space address corresponding
> to the code-space address of "function".
> 
> What my change _adds_ to this picture is the ability to say
> 
> 	print *(@code int *) function
> 
> which will print the int that resides in the CODE-SPACE address
> corresponding to the address of "function".  This is something
> that you cannot do without my change.

Without change.  My contention is that the user is almost never going to 
want to do what you just described.  Why make what the user is going to 
want to do hard?

Andrew