From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26760 invoked by alias); 30 Mar 2012 17:56:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 26752 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Mar 2012 17:56:30 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,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; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 17:56:18 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2UHtuZP012735 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 30 Mar 2012 13:55:56 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2UHtsBO016022 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 30 Mar 2012 13:55:55 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Keith Seitz , "gdb-patches\@sourceware.org ml" Subject: Re: [RFA 1/2] Linespec rewrite (update 2) References: <4F70F8F7.503@redhat.com> <87zkb0wj1x.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <4F74B583.6090008@redhat.com> <87obrertls.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <4F75D859.1010907@redhat.com> <87r4waqc38.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20120330170913.GT2701@adacore.com> Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 17:56:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20120330170913.GT2701@adacore.com> (Joel Brobecker's message of "Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:09:13 -0700") Message-ID: <87fwcqq8gl.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.94 (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: 2012-03/txt/msg01053.txt.bz2 Joel> My take on this is that the linespec was accepted before, and now Joel> it is going to generate an error. What Keith highlighted was the fact Joel> that the line number portion is currently ignored, which is definitely Joel> a bug. I don't mind if we preserve the bug of ignoring the line number, Joel> but I am a little less comfortable with error-ing out. Ok, I understand now. Keith, are there other issues outstanding? Maybe it is time for the final patch. Tom