[RFC/RFA] gdb extension for Harvard architectures

[Jim Blandy]

Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com> writes:
> > - 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.

Is is defined --- not by the standard, but by GCC.  It is very
important that GDB's expression evaluation match GCC's.

> > 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.

And indeed, that discrepancy is undesirable, right?  We should not
introduce more.