From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30815 invoked by alias); 10 May 2012 13:57:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 30801 invoked by uid 22791); 10 May 2012 13:57:39 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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; Thu, 10 May 2012 13:57:21 +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 q4ADvKgA027866 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 10 May 2012 09:57:20 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q4ADvJY2031710 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 10 May 2012 09:57:20 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Giuseppe MONTALTO Cc: "gdb-patches\@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] new MI command for pattern filling of memory regions References: <76FE3225DF13124EA2D05B290B624C95E65F2D466E@SAFEX1MAIL1.st.com> <87sjf9rzr0.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <76FE3225DF13124EA2D05B290B624C95E65FECE356@SAFEX1MAIL1.st.com> Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 13:57:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <76FE3225DF13124EA2D05B290B624C95E65FECE356@SAFEX1MAIL1.st.com> (Giuseppe MONTALTO's message of "Thu, 10 May 2012 13:40:53 +0200") Message-ID: <871umsqgu8.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.95 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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: 2012-05/txt/msg00337.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Giuseppe" == Giuseppe MONTALTO writes: Giuseppe> I did so, in the past, on a custom version of gdb, and this Giuseppe> caused me a lot of trouble while migrating to a newer release: Giuseppe> I discovered that the new release featured another argument to Giuseppe> a command I had amended, which was conflicting with my own Giuseppe> changes, so I had to rework both! Now you're in the lucky position to add arguments and mess up other people's private extensions :-) Ok, seriously, I think adding an optional argument, if that is what you need, is the better route. Tom