From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15162 invoked by alias); 8 Aug 2013 20:05:59 -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 15153 invoked by uid 89); 8 Aug 2013 20:05:58 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,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 20:05:58 +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 r78K5oo7003789 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 8 Aug 2013 16:05:50 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn-113-128.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.128]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r78K5nkj014297 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 8 Aug 2013 16:05:49 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Pedro Alves 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> <5203B180.9080404@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 20:05:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <5203B180.9080404@redhat.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Thu, 08 Aug 2013 15:56:00 +0100") Message-ID: <87eha43q3n.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2013-08/txt/msg00257.txt.bz2 >> 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? Pedro> Ugh, that'd be super odd. I certainly hope not. On irc Keith pointed out that the current value of the convenience variable is put into the linespec's canonical form. So, re-setting doesn't move the breakpoint. Tom