From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jim Blandy <jimb@zwingli.cygnus.com>
To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
Cc: Jim Blandy <jimb@cygnus.com>, Michael Snyder <msnyder@cygnus.com>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA] gdb extension for Harvard architectures
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 10:56:00 -0000
Message-id: <npadyzfkd9.fsf@zwingli.cygnus.com>
References: <3BB4D843.A92818B9@cygnus.com> <3BB512A9.6050801@cygnus.com> <3BB5195F.6050603@cygnus.com> <3BBB50C0.BD01BF20@cygnus.com> <3BBB5391.4010001@cygnus.com> <npk7yco1ay.fsf@zwingli.cygnus.com> <3BBB86B6.8090809@cygnus.com> <npsnd0mhwp.fsf@zwingli.cygnus.com> <3BC3FC63.8010407@cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-10/msg00114.html

Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com> writes:
> Anyway, my point here is that I don't think GCC should be held up as the 
> reference implementation.  Just like in GDB, I suspect GCC has edge 
> cases that no one has thought through.

I completely agree that GDB's behavior is more useful than GCC's.
Having GCC generate a warning message for such expressions, or
(golly!) disable the extension to standard C that allows arithmetic on
function pointers for that ABI, sound much better to me.

The reason I hold up GCC as the reference implementation has nothing
to do with admiration of GCC.  It is because the program the user is
trying to understand was compiled with GCC.