From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Snyder To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Michael Snyder , Jim Blandy , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA] gdb extension for Harvard architectures Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 12:08:00 -0000 Message-id: <3BBCB371.27C6@redhat.com> References: <3BB4D843.A92818B9@cygnus.com> <3BB512A9.6050801@cygnus.com> <3BB5195F.6050603@cygnus.com> <3BBA2DC9.5060500@cygnus.com> <3BBA3B03.B864ABE0@cygnus.com> <3BBA54AE.3080104@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-10/msg00084.html 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.