From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8663 invoked by alias); 17 Apr 2008 09:59:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 8653 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Apr 2008 09:59:39 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:59:21 +0000 Received: (qmail 3782 invoked from network); 17 Apr 2008 09:59:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wind.local) (vladimir@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 17 Apr 2008 09:59:19 -0000 From: Vladimir Prus To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA/RFC] Report the original location specification for a breakpoint. Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:52:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20070907.709405) References: <200804151434.57665.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <20080417025749.GA18352@caradoc.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20080417025749.GA18352@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200804171359.09556.vladimir@codesourcery.com> Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-04/txt/msg00329.txt.bz2 On Thursday 17 April 2008 06:57:49 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 02:34:57PM +0400, Vladimir Prus wrote: > > This patch adds the necessary MI support for reporting the original location. > > It's not ready to be checked in because MI testsuite will likely break all over. > > OTOH, I've tested this with KDevelop4, and it works just fine. I'll fix this > > before committing. > > > > Is this patch OK? > > > > In fact, I wonder if I can commit patches like this, that touch files > > outside of MI code but apparently change behaviour only for MI, without > > approval. Any comments? > > Isn't this going to affect more than MI? I thought the text from > ui_out_field_string was displayed for console too, just without the > label. I don't this so, but I'll check. We can always make this field output just for MI. > This definitely needs documentation to go in. I can't say this > enough. Undocumented fields in the MI output might as well not exist. Yes, of course. > Beyond those, I don't see a problem with it. Though wouldn't we like > to display this in the CLI sometimes too? I have no idea. I'd much rather have somebody else decide what CLI should contain. - Volodya