From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29870 invoked by alias); 26 Jul 2012 13:59:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 29862 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Jul 2012 13:59:35 -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; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 13:59:22 +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 q6QDxJ8Y004103 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:59:19 -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 q6QDxHHA006303 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:59:18 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Yao Qi Cc: , Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] attach to command_option-changed observer. References: <1343146252-22558-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <1343146252-22558-4-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <87pq7knayf.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <2744162.LCmhzUq8J1@qiyao.dyndns.org> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 13:59:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <2744162.LCmhzUq8J1@qiyao.dyndns.org> (Yao Qi's message of "Thu, 26 Jul 2012 20:46:59 +0800") Message-ID: <87lii6fwsq.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (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: 2012-07/txt/msg00615.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Yao" == Yao Qi writes: Tom> That would be one way to deal with the problem, but there are probably Tom> other ways as well. (I didn't commit that patch because Volodya had a Tom> different approach to emitting the notifications that I was interested Tom> in... but I still think it is a decent idea.) Yao> What is the different approach? I don't see any discussion in that Yao> thread. That patch was preparation for emitting better breakpoint notifications -- which Vladimir implemented in a different way. You can see what he did in mi-interp.c:mi_breakpoint_created. Yao> What should we do here? Shall we keep using ui-file (as what I Yao> wrote in this patch) or migrate to ui-out with your patch applied? I think you should take whichever approach you think is best. The most important thing is to not have the quoting bug. Tom