From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31999 invoked by alias); 17 Jul 2006 17:32:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 31991 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Jul 2006 17:32:08 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:32:06 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1G2Wwr-0004ZG-Ta; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 13:32:01 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:32:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Andrew STUBBS , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] set/unset/show substitute-path commands (take 2) Message-ID: <20060717173201.GA17519@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Joel Brobecker , Andrew STUBBS , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20060715054902.GD1393@adacore.com> <44BB586E.7040107@st.com> <20060717170933.GD1280@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060717170933.GD1280@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00207.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 10:09:33AM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > >+ /* Otherwise, skip to the last rule in our list and then append > > >+ the new rule. */ > > >+ > > >+ last = substitute_path_rules; > > >+ while (last->next != NULL) > > >+ last = last->next; > > >+ > > >+ last->next = rule; > > > > What if the user tries to substitute the same path twice? I think it > > should delete the old rule (maybe query) and add the new one to the end. > > I think we are getting dragged into over-engineering this feature. > If documentation is clear enough that it just adds, then he knows > he has to remove the previous rule before he introduces the new one. > That's plenty good enough in my opinion. I'm inclined to agree with Andrew on both points he raised. After that though, you're right - we're dragging this on too long. If you'll repost it with those two changes I will be sure to review it today. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery