From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27419 invoked by alias); 1 May 2005 23:04:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 27405 invoked from network); 1 May 2005 23:04:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 1 May 2005 23:04:13 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j41N4DGN006816 for ; Sun, 1 May 2005 19:04:13 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j41N4DO01032; Sun, 1 May 2005 19:04:13 -0400 Received: from [172.16.50.13] (vpn50-13.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.13]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j41N481K019372; Sun, 1 May 2005 19:04:08 -0400 Message-ID: <42755FD4.8000009@gnu.org> Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 23:04:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2-1 (X11/20050323) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii CC: mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [commit] Use bfd_byte in value.h References: <42710E90.3030300@gnu.org> <200504281919.j3SJJKF1011501@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <42715EE8.5070704@gnu.org> <01c54c8a$Blat.v2.4$ffbe8140@zahav.net.il> <42753958.70109@gnu.org> <01c54e92$Blat.v2.4$5cf24460@zahav.net.il> In-Reply-To: <01c54e92$Blat.v2.4$5cf24460@zahav.net.il> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00025.txt.bz2 Eli Zaretskii wrote: >>Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 16:17:28 -0400 >>From: Andrew Cagney >>CC: mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com >> >>Eli, >> >>Last time this came up I recommeded separating out the idea of gdb_byte >>and proposed more formally. How is this going? > > > Sorry, I'm not sure I understand (or maybe I forgot). Can you please > point me to the message with your proposal? The suggestion of gdb_byte was yours, so it rightfully falls to you to propose more formally on gdb@ (I certaintly don't want to jump in and steal your thunder). Can we finally do that? BTW, just like with value.[hc], I've been careful to only make the straight forward change for buffers of s/{unsigned,}char/bfd_byte/, and have tried to avoid more contraversial replacements such as s/void*/bfd_byte*/. We're hardly going to revert the existing bfd_byte changes.