From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9746 invoked by alias); 3 Jan 2003 16:48:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 9738 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2003 16:48:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 3 Jan 2003 16:48:33 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h03GmHa15365; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 10:48:17 -0600 Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 16:48:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200301031648.h03GmHa15365@duracef.shout.net> To: ezannoni@redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA/PATCH] breakpoint.c: fix until command Cc: drow@mvista.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, msnyder@redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00066.txt.bz2 Hi Elena, > See the thread from November on gdb@sources. Gotcha. Thanks. > I think that using decode_line_1 may be the real problem, because that > allows all kind of arguments to be used, just like for a breakpoint. I think the real problems are: (a) we haven't designed what should actually happen in all cases, and then (b) Daniel J says that some decision-making information is not reliable to get (when the user says 'until 70' gdb cannot reliably tell whether line 70 is in the current function). Michael C