From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11295 invoked by alias); 14 Nov 2013 18:31:11 -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 11286 invoked by uid 89); 14 Nov 2013 18:31:10 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from Unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 18:31:09 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAEIUwLB032137 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 14 Nov 2013 13:30:58 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAEIUu6r010386; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 13:30:57 -0500 Message-ID: <528516E0.5090708@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 18:44:00 -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: Doug Evans CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, pmuldoon@redhat.com, eliz@gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH, doc RFA] Allow CLI and Python conditions to be set on same breakpoint References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg00382.txt.bz2 On 11/14/2013 05:48 PM, Doug Evans wrote: > Regression tested on amd64-linux. > > Ok to check in? > This is fine with me. > - if (cond && b->disposition != disp_del_at_next_stop) > + if (cli_cond && b->disposition != disp_del_at_next_stop) (BTW, I notice that the 'b->disposition != disp_del_at_next_stop' handling in this function looks suspicious.) > if (within_current_scope) > - value_is_zero > - = catch_errors (breakpoint_cond_eval, cond, > + { > + int cond_result = = goes on the next line. -- Pedro Alves