From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22232 invoked by alias); 22 Jun 2011 16:35:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 21944 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Jun 2011 16:35:08 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 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; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 16:34:54 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B2232BB3EE; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 12:34:54 -0400 (EDT) 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 HBr4U0aKzHwR; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 12:34:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 228262BB3EB; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 12:34:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C7253145615; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 09:34:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 16:35:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [0/2] more OO, Ada exception catchpoints: intro Message-ID: <20110622163446.GB20676@adacore.com> References: <201106221420.08780.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201106221420.08780.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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: 2011-06/txt/msg00316.txt.bz2 Hi Pedro, > Joel, WDYT? Okay to apply? I looked at the changes, and I think that this is awesome work. I wish I had time right now to test it in our environment, but I am not sure I will. I'm planning on doing a resync sometime early next week, so I'd just go ahead and commit - I will fix whatever fallout there is left. And I'll look at simplifying the exception condition handling a bit, since I think it will be cleaner to just get the value of the parameter, and then compare it with the address of the exception we want to stop on. Thanks a lot, Pedro. -- Joel