This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [commit] Use bfd_byte in value.h
- From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Andrew Cagney <cagney at gnu dot org>
- Cc: mark dot kettenis at xs4all dot nl, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 00:10:34 +0300
- Subject: Re: [commit] Use bfd_byte in value.h
- 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>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 16:17:28 -0400
> From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
> CC: mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
>
> Eli,
>
> Last time this came up I recommeded separating out the idea of gdb_byte
> and proposed more formally. How is this going?
Sorry, I'm not sure I understand (or maybe I forgot). Can you please
point me to the message with your proposal?
> In the mean time though (then and now) I'll use bfd_byte as that lets me
> move this code forward addressing the more immediate problem of not even
> compiling with -Werror on GCC 4. With that done, i'm pretty sure that
> we'll find the follow-on task of s/bfd_byte/gdb_byte/ trivial.
I'd rather discuss first and decide, then implement. This way, you
won't need to s/bfd_byte/gdb_byte/, however trivial. The discussion
should not last long enough to delay the solution for GCC 4: after
all, it seems like a very simple issue. With any luck, we could agree
on something in a day or two.