From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27123 invoked by alias); 13 Mar 2013 20:27:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 27102 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Mar 2013 20:27:37 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_SPAMHAUS_DROP,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS 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; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 20:27:26 +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 r2DKRPYb000784 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 16:27:25 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r2DKRObp006403 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 13 Mar 2013 16:27:24 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Phil Muldoon Cc: "gdb-patches\@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [patch][python] 2 of 5 - Frame filter MI code changes. References: <513E5707.8080404@redhat.com> <87vc8wcpsm.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <513F9576.30201@redhat.com> <87ip4vb38v.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <5140D644.2010200@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 20:27:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <5140D644.2010200@redhat.com> (Phil Muldoon's message of "Wed, 13 Mar 2013 19:40:52 +0000") Message-ID: <87oben9har.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 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: 2013-03/txt/msg00608.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Phil" == Phil Muldoon writes: Phil> I do apologies, I forgot to add the mi-getopt.c patch in with the Phil> patch-set. Here it is. No problem. It seems to me that just adding a "-" to the option string in the callers is simpler, and probably better -- this patch makes "-" and "--" options synonymous in all cases, but I'm not sure we want that. Tom