From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2107 invoked by alias); 11 Nov 2009 23:35:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 2096 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Nov 2009 23:35:53 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS 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; Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:35:49 +0000 Received: from int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.17]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id nABNZlwt001457 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:35:47 -0500 Received: from [IPv6:::1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id nABNZhED008858 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:35:45 -0500 Message-ID: <4AFB4A4F.8010604@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:35:00 -0000 From: Keith Seitz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.4pre) Gecko/20091014 Fedora/3.0-2.8.b4.fc11 Lightning/1.0pre Thunderbird/3.0b4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] Typedef support for linespecs References: <4AFB3F69.9070107@redhat.com> <20091111230149.GA28314@caradoc.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20091111230149.GA28314@caradoc.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2009-11/txt/msg00268.txt.bz2 On 11/11/2009 03:01 PM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > OK. I still hate linespecs, though. Committed. Thank you for your review. > (Seriously... if we figure out that it isn't a file:line, we should > use the normal expression parser for an expression portion of > it... yes, I do realize just how difficult this would be, but the > inconsistencies drive folks mad.) Yeah, I rather agree with you. Something like this may yet get onto an Archer agenda in the future, but for now, there are, unfortunately, "bigger fish to fry" -- at least for me. Thanks, Keith