From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32337 invoked by alias); 9 Feb 2004 22:45:42 -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 32330 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2004 22:45:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp10.atl.mindspring.net) (207.69.200.246) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 Feb 2004 22:45:41 -0000 Received: from user-119a90a.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.36.10] helo=berman.michael-chastain.com) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1AqK9g-00031O-00; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:45:29 -0500 Received: by berman.michael-chastain.com (Postfix, from userid 502) id 2C05B4B363; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 17:45:45 -0500 (EST) To: drow@mvista.com, mec.gnu@mindspring.com Subject: Re: [rfa/testsuite] gdb1250.exp: make 'break abort' work with new pending breakpoints Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Message-Id: <20040209224545.2C05B4B363@berman.michael-chastain.com> Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 22:45:00 -0000 From: mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain) X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00218.txt.bz2 > None of that reference was in your message, and I don't run tests with > binutils HEAD regularly... No big deal. I wrote to binutils@ when it happened, and I've been whining it about it my "60 versus HEAD" comparisons. I figured it was just information overload. If you could take a look at pr gdb/1470 now just to get it into your L2 cache I'd be grateful. > I suppose. I don't much care either way though the new parameter seems > awkward to me - isn't the _with_pending in the name enough? My intuition says "no". An interface with a parameter is more flexible. But my intuition can be wrong, and my taste can be misguided. Michael C