From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7010 invoked by alias); 6 Oct 2011 15:51:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 7000 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Oct 2011 15:51:30 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net (HELO elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net) (209.86.89.64) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 15:51:12 +0000 Received: from [216.189.214.124] (helo=macbook2.local) by elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1RBqE4-0000cj-6Q for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 11:51:12 -0400 Message-ID: <4E8DCE67.80507@earthlink.net> Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 15:51:00 -0000 From: Stan Shebs User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Status of 'blacklist' patch? References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: ae6f8838ff913eba0cc1426638a40ef67e972de0d01da940bc631fe1f71f5bf04875e7b28c59f082350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c 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: 2011-10/txt/msg00164.txt.bz2 On 10/6/11 7:07 AM, Justin Lebar wrote: > I last pinged gdb-patches about the patch on May 16 and got no response. > > I imagine the patch has bitrotted by now. I'd be happy to bring it up > to date if there were a reasonable chance it would get reviewed this > time. > (It took a bit of digging to find the last version of the patch - I probably missed it because the patch was attached as a binary, including the changelog entry.) Anyway, I really like the concept, and "skip" seems like a good general term for the functionality. I skimmed the April version, and noticed a few things to fix up. The file headers say things like "Header for GDB line completion.", which I'm guessing is cut-n-paste from another file. :-) Also it's now 2011, not 2010. There's a lot of change of terminology from "default breakpoint" to "displayed codepoint". I know we've debated better substitutes for "breakpoint", but this patch is maybe not the best place to introduce one. (Or I'm confused about what "codepoint" means, I didn't see a definition.) I didn't see a patch for the GDB manual, so I'm not sure of the intended functionality details. If you update the patch and resubmit, I promise I'll give it a prompt review. Stan stan@codesourcery.com