From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cagney To: Jim Blandy Cc: Michael Snyder , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA] gdb extension for Harvard architectures Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 14:44:00 -0000 Message-id: <3BBB86B6.8090809@cygnus.com> References: <3BB4D843.A92818B9@cygnus.com> <3BB512A9.6050801@cygnus.com> <3BB5195F.6050603@cygnus.com> <3BBB50C0.BD01BF20@cygnus.com> <3BBB5391.4010001@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-10/msg00067.html > Andrew Cagney 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