From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14087 invoked by alias); 27 May 2005 07:40:38 -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 14056 invoked by uid 22791); 27 May 2005 07:40:35 -0000 Received: from legolas.inter.net.il (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 May 2005 07:40:35 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-56-101.inter.net.il [80.230.56.101]) by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.8-GR) with ESMTP id ELT53586 (AUTH halo1); Fri, 27 May 2005 10:40:29 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 13:52:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Paul Schlie CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: (message from Paul Schlie on Fri, 27 May 2005 02:42:19 -0400) Subject: Re: [commit] Another gdb_byte pass (correct use?) Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00573.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 02:42:19 -0400 > From: Paul Schlie > > 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.