This is the mail archive of the insight@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the Insight project.

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

Re: Register group proposal

To: Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>
Subject: Re: Register group proposal
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 20:00:09 -0500
Cc: Bernard Dautrevaux <Dautrevaux at microprocess dot com>, "'Nick Duffek'" <nsd at redhat dot com>, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com, insight at sources dot redhat dot com
References: <17B78BDF120BD411B70100500422FC6309E218@IIS000> <20010226122752.M1296@redhat.com> <3A9AA65B.FE761EC0@cygnus.com> <20010226142740.B3520@redhat.com>

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:54:19PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >>That works fine if xxx is a struct.  If, at some point, you have an
> >>amazing idea that allows you to change all xxx's to "unsigned short"
> >>you're stuck with a lot of editing.
> >
> >Um, are you being serious here?
> 
> Do you have some kind of problem with this simple concept?  Been programming
> long?

GDB is made up of several objects.  Some have been identified - a frame,
an architecture, the cli output device (ui-file / ui-out), and even a
proposal for reggroup .... Others are still lurking beneath the surface.

I don't think you are seriously suggesting that one of these
``fundamental'' objects - ex ``struct gdbarch *'' - be replaced by
``unsigned short''.

	enjoy,
		Andrew

References:
- RE: Register group proposal
  - From: Bernard Dautrevaux
- Re: Register group proposal
  - From: Christopher Faylor
- Re: Register group proposal
  - From: Andrew Cagney
- Re: Register group proposal
  - From: Christopher Faylor

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