From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11019 invoked by alias); 22 Jun 2011 17:56:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 10991 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Jun 2011 17:56:10 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 17:55:56 +0000 Received: (qmail 27803 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2011 17:55:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO scottsdale.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 22 Jun 2011 17:55:55 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Joel Brobecker Subject: Re: [0/2] more OO, Ada exception catchpoints: intro Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 17:56:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.38-8-generic; KDE/4.6.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <201106221420.08780.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20110622163446.GB20676@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20110622163446.GB20676@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201106221855.52825.pedro@codesourcery.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00320.txt.bz2 On Wednesday 22 June 2011 17:34:46, Joel Brobecker wrote: > Hi Pedro, > > > Joel, WDYT? Okay to apply? > > I looked at the changes, and I think that this is awesome work. Thanks. > 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. Okay, done. (I just did a couple cosmetic changes to patch #2 before applying.) > 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. Might be a good idea. > Thanks a lot, Pedro. Welcome. -- Pedro Alves