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

[Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>]

Andrew Cagney wrote:

> ``Note below'':
> 
> The basic framework attached the segment information to the pointee
> rather than pointer.  Was this an arbitrary decision or based on some
> theoretical framework.

Can't tell if I've adequately answered this.  The design decision
was: make the address-modifier behave syntactically like the
const-modifier and volatile-modifier.  I figured that was easiest
to implement (already had an example), easiest to explain
("it's just like const"), and already known to be powerful
enough to modify any data type.  Since the address modifier
can be used in a context similar to the const and volatile
modifiers, I would have needed a pretty good reason to make
it syntactically different from them.  I couldn't think of one.