From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32712 invoked by alias); 8 Feb 2016 20:11:31 -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 32698 invoked by uid 89); 8 Feb 2016 20:11:30 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Writing, up, up! X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 08 Feb 2016 20:11:29 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DE01C0A1B1B; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 20:11:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from valrhona.uglyboxes.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u18KBQmJ002840 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 8 Feb 2016 15:11:27 -0500 Subject: Re: RFC: branching for GDB 7.11 soon? (possibly Wed) To: Pedro Alves , Joel Brobecker , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org ml" References: <20160201030638.GG4008@adacore.com> <20160207081230.GA20874@adacore.com> <56B8EC41.7080004@redhat.com> <56B8F550.4020506@redhat.com> From: Keith Seitz Message-ID: <56B8F66E.5080106@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2016 20:11:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56B8F550.4020506@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-02/txt/msg00206.txt.bz2 On 02/08/2016 12:06 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: >> Writing a test for this now. > > Thanks Keith. Having the testsuite cover this would be great. Coming right up! > BTW, calling both b->location and the b->loc things "locations" > is ambiguous and confusing, IMO. How about we start calling > the new b->location, the "location spec" ? That's an excellent idea. I will see about updating some header files with this. Keith