From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5513 invoked by alias); 30 Mar 2012 16:37:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 5227 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Mar 2012 16:37:54 -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 16:37:32 +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 q2UGbWXv021889 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 12:37:32 -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 q2UGbVx3010931 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 30 Mar 2012 12:37:31 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Keith Seitz Cc: "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> Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 16:37:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4F75D859.1010907@redhat.com> (Keith Seitz's message of "Fri, 30 Mar 2012 08:59:21 -0700") Message-ID: <87r4waqc38.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/msg01049.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Keith" == Keith Seitz writes: Tom> What is the rationale for having a linespec where parts are ignored? Tom> I couldn't think of a use for it. And, if current cvs rejects it, then Tom> it seems like it is interfering with a useful future feature as well. Keith> I agree, but perhaps I simply misunderstood Joel? Keith> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2012-03/msg00904.html I read the followup more as a request for the feature to be added: http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2012-03/msg00907.html However, I think that it is better to have this patch be as behavior-unchanging as reasonably possible and leave feature additions for follow-up patches. Tom