From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19617 invoked by alias); 10 Jul 2006 21:56:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 19609 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Jul 2006 21:56:34 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nile.gnat.com (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 21:56:33 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5132A48CEDF; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 17:56:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 10519-01-4; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 17:56:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from takamaka.act-europe.fr (S0106000f3d96cb6d.vc.shawcable.net [24.84.195.170]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 099E048CE23; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 17:56:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id 7F54547EFA; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:56:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 21:56:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] New substitute-path commands Message-ID: <20060710215630.GB2390@adacore.com> References: <1152198199.6282.63.camel@dufur.beaverton.ibm.com> <20060706162952.GB24631@nevyn.them.org> <20060707052219.GA971@adacore.com> <20060707191203.GD971@adacore.com> <20060710054027.GF971@adacore.com> <20060710214706.GA2390@adacore.com> <20060710215114.GA31444@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060710215114.GA31444@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-07/txt/msg00085.txt.bz2 > FWIW, this version of the interface is fine with me (I didn't look at > the code). I strongly agree with Andrew that we should support more > than one substitution rule, but we can do that separately. I have no problem with that, the interface is extensible in that way. In terms of implementation, I should have more time for that in the fall. -- Joel