From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12878 invoked by alias); 24 Dec 2009 10:11:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 12870 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Dec 2009 10:11:14 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 24 Dec 2009 10:11:08 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9F1A2BAB99; Thu, 24 Dec 2009 05:11:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id pcqwIUWmaFYE; Thu, 24 Dec 2009 05:11:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 570002BAB90; Thu, 24 Dec 2009 05:11:06 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A8DF0F5937; Thu, 24 Dec 2009 11:10:41 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 10:11:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Thiago Jung Bauermann , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, luisgpm@linux.vnet.ibm.com, tyrlik@us.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Support the BookE hardware debug features Message-ID: <20091224101041.GX2788@adacore.com> References: <200912232230.51403.bauerman@br.ibm.com> <83iqbx57r4.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83iqbx57r4.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2009-12/txt/msg00380.txt.bz2 > What's the decision regarding the new *-range commands? I see they > are still being introduced. We have 1 voice against that and one in > favor. If you are not convinced by what I wrote against them, I'd > like to hear more opinions before we decide. Just in case you are referring to my answer as in favor, I should say that I'm more like 50-50, or only slightly in favor. I am not against the syntax you suggested provided that it does not complicate the implementation too much. -- Joel