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

[Michael Snyder <msnyder@cygnus.com>]

Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> > 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!

OK -- so where do we stand?  Are you OK with this patch going in?
To be refined later as necessary?