From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17432 invoked by alias); 27 May 2005 06:42:34 -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 17411 invoked by uid 22791); 27 May 2005 06:42:25 -0000 Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net (HELO rwcrmhc13.comcast.net) (204.127.198.39) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 May 2005 06:42:25 +0000 Received: from [10.0.1.2] (c-24-61-199-96.hsd1.nh.comcast.net[24.61.199.96]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with SMTP id <2005052706422301500dd090e>; Fri, 27 May 2005 06:42:23 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.1.0.040913 Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 10:34:00 -0000 Subject: Re: [commit] Another gdb_byte pass (correct use?) From: Paul Schlie To: Message-ID: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00572.txt.bz2 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.)