Re: [RFC/RFA] gdb extension for Harvard architectures

Michael Snyder
2001-10-08T10:36:00Z

Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
> > Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >
> >
> >> ``Note below'':
> >>
> >> The basic framework attached the segment information to the pointee
> >> rather than pointer. Was this an arbitrary decision or based on some
> >> theoretical framework.
> >
> >
> > Can't tell if I've adequately answered this. The design decision
> > was: make the address-modifier behave syntactically like the
> > const-modifier and volatile-modifier. I figured that was easiest
> > to implement (already had an example), easiest to explain
> > ("it's just like const"), and already known to be powerful
> > enough to modify any data type. Since the address modifier
> > can be used in a context similar to the const and volatile
> > modifiers, I would have needed a pretty good reason to make
> > it syntactically different from them. I couldn't think of one.
>
> Thanks!

OK -- so where do we stand? Are you OK with this patch going in?
To be refined later as necessary?