From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: fche@redhat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler)
To: Andrew Cagney <cagney@cygnus.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA] gdb extension for Harvard architectures
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 16:51:00 -0000
Message-id: <o5n138p9ik.fsf@toenail.toronto.redhat.com>
References: <3BB4D843.A92818B9@cygnus.com> <3BB512A9.6050801@cygnus.com> <3BB5195F.6050603@cygnus.com> <npu1xhq0d9.fsf@zwingli.cygnus.com> <3BBA2DC9.5060500@cygnus.com> <npofnoo6h3.fsf@zwingli.cygnus.com> <3BBB6C50.50207@cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-10/msg00074.html

cagney wrote:

: > - doesn't change the meaning of any valid C expressions
: 
: Is this a valid C expression?
: 
: 	int foo();
: 	char *c = foo;
: 
: I.e. does ISO C define its semantics?

A mere pointer assignment?  There is not much possible semantics there
to worry about.  Yes, it'd be illegal to dereference the char* pointer.
It may be legal to cast it back to "int (*) ()" and call through that,
if "char*" is as big as "int (*) ()".

Some of this discussion seems to me to focus too much on how
fundamentally nonsensical operations may be expressed in nonsensical
gdb expression syntax.

- FChE