From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6912 invoked by alias); 11 Jun 2012 19:17:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 6903 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Jun 2012 19:17:08 -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 19:16:56 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q5BJGuIU010323 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:16:56 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-33.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.33]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q5BJGq8O031373 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:16:55 -0400 Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 19:17:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: [commit] [patch] Fix "ambiguous linespec" regression: break lineno Message-ID: <20120611191651.GA30308@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20120608193958.GA10296@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87ehppczag.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20120610190308.GA23551@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87sje198yq.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87sje198yq.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> 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/msg00306.txt.bz2 On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 17:14:37 +0200, Tom Tromey wrote: > I wonder if it would be cleaner as a flag to linespec. > That's just speculation, please don't consider it an objection. > I think you can go ahead as you like. When I already wrote and hopefully finish the unification patch I just kept this one to be "revert". Checked in: http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-cvs/2012-06/msg00077.html Thanks, Jan