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: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 10:36:00 -0000 Message-id: <3BC1E3C2.C2E38EFF@cygnus.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> <3BBCB371.27C6@redhat.com> <3BBCC2D9.9000706@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-10/msg00095.html 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?