From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14410 invoked by alias); 26 Mar 2012 18:52:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 14394 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Mar 2012 18:51:58 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 18:51:30 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2QIpT6j029773 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:51:29 -0400 Received: from valrhona.uglyboxes.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q2QIpQvC032754 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:51:28 -0400 Message-ID: <4F70BAAD.3000800@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 18:52:00 -0000 From: Keith Seitz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120209 Thunderbird/10.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Tromey CC: Daniel Jacobowitz , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA 1/3] Linespec rewrite: Parsing References: <4F67A319.4090608@redhat.com> <4F6DC651.6060704@gmail.com> <4F6E0319.1080100@redhat.com> <87r4wfs56s.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <87r4wfs56s.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> 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: 2012-03/txt/msg00877.txt.bz2 On 03/26/2012 09:22 AM, Tom Tromey wrote: > I was hoping we could get away with this change. It seemed clearly sane > to me, but apparently front-end authors disagree :) At least one other front-end author has worked around previous bugs by quoting the entire linespec. So it looks like we'll have to maintain bug-for-bug compatibility on this. > For Plan B I think we can treat quotes differently and preserve > compatibility. I'd rather not do this, but I think compatibility is > more important than cleanliness. I have pushed a patch to my archer branch which permits quote-encapsulating the linespec. I have also reverted the "invalid" linespec tests. Keith