From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19952 invoked by alias); 31 Jan 2004 00:33:38 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 19928 invoked from network); 31 Jan 2004 00:33:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO touchme.toronto.redhat.com) (216.129.200.20) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 31 Jan 2004 00:33:36 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (toocool.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.72]) by touchme.toronto.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 844E7800195; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:33:36 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <401AF7E0.5020406@redhat.com> Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 00:33:00 -0000 From: Jeff Johnston User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA]: pending breakpoint support [1/3] References: <400EE69A.5030902@redhat.com> <20040122222741.GA17425@nevyn.them.org> <4016CCE0.5060900@redhat.com> <20040130041316.GA28843@nevyn.them.org> <401AA79B.7010307@redhat.com> <20040130190927.GA19379@nevyn.them.org> <401ADEA3.6010500@redhat.com> <20040130234543.GA12519@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20040130234543.GA12519@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg00773.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: >On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 05:45:55PM -0500, Jeff Johnston wrote: > > >>Well, therein lies the problem. The word "if" might or might not be >>part of the symbol. The >>regular logic relies on parsing out the symbol first and then looking at >>the aftermath. I don't have >>that luxury so I punt. It may be slightly confusing if the user does >>the scenario above, but the >>displayed pending breakpoint info is meant to be the "original >>breakpoint string" so I don't anticipate >>the user will object too much. Ok or do you have a better idea? >> >> > >Right, I see. This is fine. The patch is OK to commit with the >"resolved" wording change - thanks for your patience! > > Thanks.