From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
To: Jim Blandy <jimb@cygnus.com>
Cc: Michael Snyder <msnyder@cygnus.com>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA] gdb extension for Harvard architectures
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 11:17:00 -0000
Message-id: <3BC49096.6050001@cygnus.com>
References: <3BB4D843.A92818B9@cygnus.com> <3BB512A9.6050801@cygnus.com> <3BB5195F.6050603@cygnus.com> <npu1xhq0d9.fsf@zwingli.cygnus.com> <3BBA2DC9.5060500@cygnus.com> <3BBA3B03.B864ABE0@cygnus.com> <3BBA54AE.3080104@cygnus.com> <npzo78odh8.fsf@zwingli.cygnus.com> <3BC3EBAC.50609@cygnus.com> <npbsjffkjh.fsf@zwingli.cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-10/msg00116.html

> Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com> writes:
> 
>> With regard to a @data->@io pointer.  That is probably wrong.  Pointers, 
>> which are typically implemented as address registers (not to be confused 
>> with GDB's core addr), have a fixed size for a given address space.
> 
> 
> Not sure what you mean here.  A value of type `@io foo *' is perfectly
> meaningful.  Its size depends on characteristics of the I/O space.

What about ``@io int *@code''?  The pointer's size is independant (well 
at least for the moment) of the source address space.  Hence the 
attribute attached to the pointer (instead of pointee) adds nothing.

Andrew