Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 02:26:17PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote:
>> Yabbut, this isn't a test of symbol handling, it's
>> a test of continuing to a breakpoint.
> 
> True, though we have a lot of things that are tested 'all over' like
> this.
> 
>>> For the second part can you just put the .* at
>>> appropriate callers?
>> Sure, if you prefer.  So maybe remove the .* but accept
>> the (in|at)?
> 
> Yes please.  That part seems fine - it's not like nothing else will
> break if we end up unexpectedly without debug info :-).
> 

OK, revised and committed as attached.
Thanks