From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31518 invoked by alias); 7 Nov 2012 15:48:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 31502 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Nov 2012 15:48:26 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_SPAMHAUS_DROP,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; Wed, 07 Nov 2012 15:48:18 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qA7FmGZt015419 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 7 Nov 2012 10:48:16 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qA7FmFeB012636; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 10:48:15 -0500 Message-ID: <509A82BF.5090609@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 15:48:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121016 Thunderbird/16.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Burgess CC: Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Add fullname field in disassembly output References: <506DB4B8.5030001@broadcom.com> <5085B9D5.80508@broadcom.com> <50913B7F.10707@redhat.com> <5093A785.3060103@broadcom.com> <5093E786.2090909@redhat.com> <5098FEF0.60503@broadcom.com> <83d2zq39un.fsf@gnu.org> <509A7960.3010306@broadcom.com> In-Reply-To: <509A7960.3010306@broadcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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: 2012-11/txt/msg00149.txt.bz2 On 11/07/2012 03:08 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote: > That would probably be a good thing, but given I didn't add the code I'd > rather not start changing these things. Also, given that this exists in > the wild and the MI interface is supposed to remain consistent I suspect > we're stuck with what we have... Yes. > Just so I'm clear, should I consider this a block to committing this patch? No. -- Pedro Alves