This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: [RFC/RFA] gdb extension for Harvard architectures


> Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com> writes:
> 
>> > Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com> writes:
>> > 
> 
>> >> With regard to a @data->@io pointer.  That is probably wrong.  Pointers, 
>> >> which are typically implemented as address registers (not to be confused 
>> >> with GDB's core addr), have a fixed size for a given address space.
> 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Not sure what you mean here.  A value of type `@io foo *' is perfectly
>> > meaningful.  Its size depends on characteristics of the I/O space.
> 
>> 
>> What about ``@io int *@code''?  The pointer's size is independant (well 
>> at least for the moment) of the source address space.  Hence the 
>> attribute attached to the pointer (instead of pointee) adds nothing.
> 
> 
> The declaration
> 
>         @io int * @code x;
> 
> would declare a variable x in code space that points to an int in io
> space.  Of course, GDB doesn't do declarations.
> 
> For casts, sure; the latter qualifier in `(@io int * @code) 0x10' is
> meaningless.  Address space qualifiers are meaningless applied to
> rvalues, as are `const' and `volatile'.  In `(int * const) x', the
> `const' is meaningless, too, because the result of a cast expression
> isn't an lvalue.

Yes, I just said that.

> What's your point?

``With regard to a @data->@io pointer.  That [my comment] is probably 
wrong'' vis:

 > having a @data -> @io space pointer sitting in code memory, while 
sick, is still plausable.



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]