From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32399 invoked by alias); 8 Aug 2013 14:56:13 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 32350 invoked by uid 89); 8 Aug 2013 14:56:12 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RDNS_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.1 Received: from Unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Thu, 08 Aug 2013 14:56:11 +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 r78Eu2wO013511 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 8 Aug 2013 10:56:02 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r78Eu0QG027858; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 10:56:01 -0400 Message-ID: <5203B180.9080404@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 14:56:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Tromey CC: ali_anwar , Keith Seitz , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix for PR15117 References: <51F7EFF1.6030609@codesourcery.com> <51F80C61.9080308@redhat.com> <51FBA2A6.8000307@codesourcery.com> <51FBF127.7000108@redhat.com> <5201DE39.6060302@codesourcery.com> <87ob995kzd.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <87ob995kzd.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-08/txt/msg00242.txt.bz2 On 08/07/2013 09:01 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: > FWIW I am not especially fond of convenience variables in linespecs. > They seem odd to me. Like, won't the breakpoint move at re-set if the > variable changes? Ugh, that'd be super odd. I certainly hope not. -- Pedro Alves