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

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.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.

Thanks!

Andrew