From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13457 invoked by alias); 15 May 2014 17:58:18 -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 13440 invoked by uid 89); 15 May 2014 17:58:17 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 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 ESMTP; Thu, 15 May 2014 17:58:16 +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 (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s4FHwEYO001087 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 15 May 2014 13:58:14 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn-113-182.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.182]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s4FHwCE6015880 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 15 May 2014 13:58:13 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Yao Qi Cc: Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Return error code in get_number References: <1394677950-4054-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <87d2hqku59.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <532253C8.7050507@codesourcery.com> <87lhwckfq8.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <53264680.9090704@codesourcery.com> Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 17:58:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <53264680.9090704@codesourcery.com> (Yao Qi's message of "Mon, 17 Mar 2014 08:49:04 +0800") Message-ID: <87k39mapqj.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: 2014-05/txt/msg00257.txt.bz2 Tom> It seems to me that an MI client already knows all the breakpoint Tom> numbers. I'm having trouble picturing the scenario where I'd want my MI Tom> client to use a convenience variable instead. Yao> This facilitates writing MI test cases that we don't have to hard-code Yao> breakpoint numbers anymore. Keith pointed this out in the review Yao> https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2014-01/msg00824.html and I think Yao> that is good to have, so I write this patch series. Can this justify Yao> the changes in this series? I am not opposed to it but I would like to gently push back a little. It seems to me that if the proposed patches are there to help with a deficiency in the test suite, then it would be better to fix the test suite. Say, by implementing a way to extract the breakpoint number and make it available to the Tcl code. Did you consider this approach? And if so what made you reject it? Tom