From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7704 invoked by alias); 1 Oct 2012 18:47:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 7695 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Oct 2012 18:47:20 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_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; Mon, 01 Oct 2012 18:47:11 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q91IlARP022799 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 1 Oct 2012 14:47:10 -0400 Received: from valrhona.uglyboxes.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q91Il71p006012 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 1 Oct 2012 14:47:09 -0400 Message-ID: <5069E52B.60203@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 18:47:00 -0000 From: Keith Seitz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120605 Thunderbird/13.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dje@google.com CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] partial fix for 14643 References: In-Reply-To: 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: 2012-10/txt/msg00013.txt.bz2 On 10/01/2012 11:08 AM, dje@google.com wrote: > It does not fix "b foo:: thread ::bar()". > My fix for that is a bit hackish, and that case isn't as important. Yeah, it's not a big deal IMO, either, but I've been mistaken before. Naively, I would think keyword_ok could be (un)set whenever a scope operator is seen. I haven't investigated this at all of course. > Ok to check in? You're a global maintainer! :-P FWIW, I think this change is fine. Inelegant perhaps, but quite honestly, there are too many other, bigger issues/problems to solve to worry about this. Keith