* Re: [commit] Another gdb_byte pass (correct use?)
@ 2005-05-27 10:34 Paul Schlie
2005-05-27 13:52 ` Eli Zaretskii
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Paul Schlie @ 2005-05-27 10:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-patches
Just to double check, as I thought the original intent of gdb_byte* was
an alternative to a void* to more accurately identify byte oriented data
not true char* or char[] strings? as if all 'char's are now 'gdb_byte's,
why bother, should have just left them alone?
(and compiled with unsigned char, or possibly get rid of the silly GCC
warning complaining about comparison of pointers to types differing in
signness, as the types are compatible.)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [commit] Another gdb_byte pass (correct use?)
2005-05-27 10:34 [commit] Another gdb_byte pass (correct use?) Paul Schlie
@ 2005-05-27 13:52 ` Eli Zaretskii
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2005-05-27 13:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul Schlie; +Cc: gdb-patches
> Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 02:42:19 -0400
> From: Paul Schlie <schlie@comcast.net>
>
> Just to double check, as I thought the original intent of gdb_byte* was
> an alternative to a void* to more accurately identify byte oriented data
> not true char* or char[] strings?
Yes.
> as if all 'char's are now 'gdb_byte's, why bother, should have just
> left them alone?
Not all `char *'s are now `gdb_byte's, only thosed where `char *' was
used for something other than a text string.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-05-27 7:40 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2005-05-27 10:34 [commit] Another gdb_byte pass (correct use?) Paul Schlie
2005-05-27 13:52 ` Eli Zaretskii
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox