From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24301 invoked by alias); 2 Sep 2011 14:31:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 24273 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Sep 2011 14:31:09 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,TW_DB X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-pz0-f44.google.com (HELO mail-pz0-f44.google.com) (209.85.210.44) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 02 Sep 2011 14:30:42 +0000 Received: by pzk36 with SMTP id 36so4806513pzk.3 for ; Fri, 02 Sep 2011 07:30:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.199.133 with SMTP id jk5mr1947221pbc.486.1314973839847; Fri, 02 Sep 2011 07:30:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.101] ([60.186.230.192]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f6sm10549344pbp.2.2011.09.02.07.30.34 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 02 Sep 2011 07:30:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E60E90A.9020507@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 16:04:00 -0000 From: asmwarrior User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:6.0.1) Gecko/20110830 Thunderbird/6.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Keith Seitz CC: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] 12843 References: <4E56C5A0.60802@redhat.com> <4E5E7AA1.5030209@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4E5E7AA1.5030209@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2011-09/txt/msg00033.txt.bz2 On 2011-9-1 2:17, Keith Seitz wrote: > > How about this? [Tested on x86_64-linux and i686-pc-cygwin (with much > pain).] > > Keith > > ChangeLog > 2011-08-30 Keith Seitz > > PR gdb/12843 > * linespec.c (locate_first_half): Keep ':' if it looks > like it could be part of a drive letter or filename. > > testsuite/ChangeLog > 2011-08-30 Keith Seitz > > PR gdb/12843 > * gdb.base/linespecs.exp: New file. I test this patch on MinGW32 + Windows XP, and it works fine. and This patch is much better than your previous patch. asmwarrior ollydbg from codeblocks' forum