From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31909 invoked by alias); 3 May 2005 19:58:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 31841 invoked from network); 3 May 2005 19:58:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 3 May 2005 19:58:15 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.50 #1 (Debian)) id 1DT3X5-0001Qj-6q for ; Tue, 03 May 2005 15:58:15 -0400 Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 19:58:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Replace char * with something sensible Message-ID: <20050503195815.GA5300@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <01c55019$Blat.v2.4$95304420@zahav.net.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <01c55019$Blat.v2.4$95304420@zahav.net.il> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00035.txt.bz2 On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 10:51:02PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > Rumor has it that latest versions of GCC whine about mixing "char *" > and "unsigned char *". To fix that, Andrew committed some patches > that replace these with a "bfd_byte *", but I think we should not use > BFD data types in GDB unless they refer to data structures returned by > functions from the BFD library. > > Possible solutions: > > . use "void *" (suggested by Mark Kettenis). > > . define a new data type gdb_byte and use "gdb_byte *". > > I think Mark's suggestion should be considered first, since it avoids > the pain of introducing yet another custom data type. I am marginally in favor of gdb_byte. What pain would it cause, besides a huge sed for the existing bfd_byte cases? These are byte-oriented buffers, so using a type where we can perform byte-oriented arithmetic without superfluous casts seems like a good choice to me. Converting to void * (and not using the GCC extension which allows arithmetic on void *) would be a painful process. It's not as if non-8-bit-byte support is anywhere on our horizon. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC