From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6865 invoked by alias); 11 Jun 2012 15:21:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 6855 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Jun 2012 15:20:59 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:20:47 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q5BFKkvR032721 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:20:46 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-33.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.33]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q5BFKfCp014956 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:20:44 -0400 Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:21:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Matt Rice Cc: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] Fix "ambiguous linespec" regression: break lineno Message-ID: <20120611152041.GA14231@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20120608193958.GA10296@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87ehppczag.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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: 2012-06/txt/msg00285.txt.bz2 On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 00:18:57 +0200, Matt Rice wrote: > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: > > I realize you're just reverting a bit of code - but is that ObjC hack > > really needed?  I'd like us to get away from this kind of thing. > > I have failed to find any justification for it now, or when it was > removed from your linespec branch, it's possibly related to the old > ambiguous method name support, which seems to work fine without it > now. I do not fully understand this comment, I hope it has been answered in the thread now. Thanks, Jan