From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cagney To: Christopher Faylor Cc: Bernard Dautrevaux , "'Nick Duffek'" , gdb@sources.redhat.com, insight@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Register group proposal Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 17:02:00 -0000 Message-id: <3A9AFC19.9673A100@cygnus.com> References: <17B78BDF120BD411B70100500422FC6309E218@IIS000> <20010226122752.M1296@redhat.com> <3A9AA65B.FE761EC0@cygnus.com> <20010226142740.B3520@redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-02/msg00399.html 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