Re: [RFC/RFA] gdb extension for Harvard architectures

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>]

> Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com> writes:

> Michael's change makes what the user wants possible at all, which is
> an improvement over the current situation.  You are asking for an
> additional improvement, which can be discussed separately from
> Michael's change.

Ah! Thankyou!

> You're essentially proposing:
> - that a cast expression like (T) EXPR would not result in a value of
>   type T, but some other type chosen to save the user's keystrokes, and

Yes.

> - that we make GDB evaluate expressions like `(int *) &main' differently
>   from the way the compiler does.

and that this isn't defined at all.  It does have a loose definition on 
unified address space architectures.

> Those set off warning bells, for me.  You can special-case this stuff
> to make the naive user's behavior do the right thing want all you
> want.  If you've ever had Microsoft Word correct your capitalization
> or automatically munge your paragraph formatting, you know what the
> resulting systems feel like to use.

Have a look at the way GDB vs GCC implements ``func + 4'' for AIX.  We 
do this now.

Andrew