This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFC/RFA] gdb extension for Harvard architectures
- To: Jim Blandy <jimb at cygnus dot com>
- Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA] gdb extension for Harvard architectures
- From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 17:44:22 -0400
- Cc: Michael Snyder <msnyder at cygnus dot com>,gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- References: <3BB4D843.A92818B9@cygnus.com> <3BB512A9.6050801@cygnus.com> <3BB5195F.6050603@cygnus.com> <3BBB50C0.BD01BF20@cygnus.com> <3BBB5391.4010001@cygnus.com> <npk7yco1ay.fsf@zwingli.cygnus.com>
> Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com> writes:
> Michael's change makes what the user wants possible at all, which is
> an improvement over the current situation. You are asking for an
> additional improvement, which can be discussed separately from
> Michael's change.
Ah! Thankyou!
> You're essentially proposing:
> - that a cast expression like (T) EXPR would not result in a value of
> type T, but some other type chosen to save the user's keystrokes, and
Yes.
> - that we make GDB evaluate expressions like `(int *) &main' differently
> from the way the compiler does.
and that this isn't defined at all. It does have a loose definition on
unified address space architectures.
> Those set off warning bells, for me. You can special-case this stuff
> to make the naive user's behavior do the right thing want all you
> want. If you've ever had Microsoft Word correct your capitalization
> or automatically munge your paragraph formatting, you know what the
> resulting systems feel like to use.
Have a look at the way GDB vs GCC implements ``func + 4'' for AIX. We
do this now.
Andrew