From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-12774-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 17250 invoked by alias); 14 Feb 2002 04:10:03 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 17113 invoked from network); 14 Feb 2002 04:09:56 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.112.135.44)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 14 Feb 2002 04:09:56 -0000
Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 794F63CC5; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 23:09:52 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <3C6B3890.1040708@cygnus.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 20:10:00 -0000
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.8) Gecko/20020210
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>
Cc: Greg McGary <gkm@kayak.mcgary.org>,
	gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: PATCH: new "void" memory region attribute
References: <msg044zz73.fsf@mcgary.org> <3C6B2DB1.9060304@cygnus.com> <3C6B2D1B.5E551319@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00389.txt.bz2

> Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
>> 
> 
>> > enum mem_access_mode
>> > {
>> > -  MEM_RW,                    /* read/write */
>> > -  MEM_RO,                    /* read only */
>> > -  MEM_WO                     /* write only */
>> > +  MEM_VOID = 0,
>> > +  MEM_READ = 1,
>> > +  MEM_WRITE = 2,
>> > +  MEM_RW = MEM_READ | MEM_WRITE,
>> > };
>> >
> 
>> 
>> Greg, I'm just wondering why this part change?  Wouldn't just adding a
>> MEM_VOID entry have been easier?
> 
> 
> No, it's because (attr != MEM_RO) is no longer a sufficient test
> to see if a section is writeable.  There are now two modes that are
> not writeable -- MEM_RO and MEM_VOID.  He could have made the tests
> more complex, he simply chose to do it this way instead.

Ah, ok.  I see why I'm confused.  The command set is an enumeration:

	void ro ro rw

but the internal representation is now:

	r, w

Greg, might as well go the whole hog, make it a set: rwx (don't wan't a 
programmer trying to jump into a device :-)

Otherwize ok.

Andrew