From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-21402-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 6039 invoked by alias); 4 May 2005 17:57:11 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 5996 invoked from network); 4 May 2005 17:57:05 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO fencepost.gnu.org) (199.232.76.164)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 4 May 2005 17:57:05 -0000
Received: from eliz by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34)
	id 1DTO6n-00007B-7s; Wed, 04 May 2005 13:56:39 -0400
To: cagney@gnu.org
CC: mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, drow@false.org, gdb@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <4278EC18.1000308@gnu.org> (message from Andrew Cagney on Wed, 04
	May 2005 11:36:56 -0400)
Subject: Re: A case for `void *' for pointers to arbitrary (byte) buffers
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <42710E90.3030300@gnu.org> <200504281919.j3SJJKF1011501@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <42715EE8.5070704@gnu.org> <01c54c8a$Blat.v2.4$ffbe8140@zahav.net.il> <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> <4278EC18.1000308@gnu.org>
Message-Id: <E1DTO6n-00007B-7s@fencepost.gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 17:57:00 -0000
X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00057.txt.bz2

> Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 11:36:56 -0400
> From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
> 
> To ensure that our byte buffers are compatible with BFDs we'll want to use 
> "typedef bfd_byte gdb_byte" anyway.

Can you explain why?  I don't see why we will want that.

> Anyway, since the prefered name is "gdb_byte", and that was Eli's idea, 
> I think it is fit and proper that Eli take the honours.   Can we get it 
> done by tomorrow?

If ``we'' here means me, then no, ``we'' cannot do this by tomorrow.
I won't have enough free time until then, and on top of that, since
the FSF moved to their new offices, I have trouble even reading my
mail, let alone doing something more serious.  Sorry.