From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5535 invoked by alias); 4 May 2005 14:45:52 -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 1107 invoked from network); 4 May 2005 14:43:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 4 May 2005 14:43:01 -0000 Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (root@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl [192.168.0.2]) by sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j44EdegQ019829; Wed, 4 May 2005 16:39:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.4/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j44EdeG3026606; Wed, 4 May 2005 16:39:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id j44EddSb000734; Wed, 4 May 2005 16:39:39 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 14:45:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200505041439.j44EddSb000734@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: drow@false.org CC: gdb@sourceware.org, cagney@gnu.org, eliz@gnu.org In-reply-to: <20050503222744.GA10500@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Tue, 3 May 2005 18:27:44 -0400) Subject: Re: A case for `void *' for pointers to arbitrary (byte) buffers References: <42753958.70109@gnu.org> <01c54e92$Blat.v2.4$5cf24460@zahav.net.il> <42755FD4.8000009@gnu.org> <01c54f4a$Blat.v2.4$a9fc8500@zahav.net.il> <42778DE6.1080106@gnu.org> <200505032013.j43KD1dD005239@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20050503202352.GA6424@nevyn.them.org> <200505032113.j43LDOlL013376@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20050503211646.GB8203@nevyn.them.org> <200505032206.j43M6QEN002791@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20050503222744.GA10500@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00055.txt.bz2 Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 18:27:44 -0400 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To be honest, my preference is still for gdb_byte * over uint8_t *, for exactly the reason Stan just mentioned: consistency. Whether that's defined as unsigned char or uint8_t is less important to me. So there seems to be a concensus for using `gdb_byte' for target byte buffers. Unless Eli has anything to add to the discussion, I'll consider this discussion closed. Does gdb_byte, defined in terms of uint8_t, work for you? This would be silly. It's not that `uint8_t' will be anything other than `unsigned char' on any system supported by gdb in the foreseeable future. Let's simply add typedef unsigned char gdb_byte; to "defs.h" and use that in any future changes. Andrew, you want to do the honour? Once that is done, people should update the targets they maintain to use it and get rid of `bfd_byte' ASAP. Mark