From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-39260-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 5870 invoked by alias); 5 May 2005 15:32:08 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 5118 invoked from network); 5 May 2005 15:31:43 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao04.cox.net) (68.230.240.35)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 5 May 2005 15:31:43 -0000
Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by lakermmtao04.cox.net
          (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-118-20041027) with ESMTP
          id <20050505153142.TLK20878.lakermmtao04.cox.net@white>;
          Thu, 5 May 2005 11:31:42 -0400
Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 1DTiKD-0008Cx-00; Thu, 05 May 2005 11:31:41 -0400
Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 15:32:00 -0000
From: Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>
To: Dennis Brueni <dbrueni@slickedit.com>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] fullname attribute for GDB/MI stack frames
Message-ID: <20050505153141.GB31111@white>
Mail-Followup-To: Dennis Brueni <dbrueni@slickedit.com>,
	gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
References: <ECCC6E9907B4CD4A83260A191A91F20E4763C7@wampa.office.slickedit.com> <20050505152537.GA31111@white> <20050505152750.GA11235@nevyn.them.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20050505152750.GA11235@nevyn.them.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00163.txt.bz2

On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 11:27:51AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 11:25:37AM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote:
> > I personally think that at best, Eli's originally regex will need to be
> > used. For instance, I don't believe that GDB should change in order to
> > get the proper regex in this testcase. I believe that we should use a
> > regex that matches the current output of GDB. If it is determined that
> > GDB is broke, it can be fixed in another patch.
> 
> I agree.  I don't much care what the regular expression is; I'm just
> waiting for you to take care of that before I return to the initial
> patch.

OK, I'll do that right now.

Thanks,
Bob Rossi