From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4960 invoked by alias); 26 Mar 2012 16:26:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 4917 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Mar 2012 16:26:57 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,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; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:26:39 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2QGQWZQ015429 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 26 Mar 2012 12:26:38 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2QGMJVV030240 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 26 Mar 2012 12:22:20 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Keith Seitz , asmwarrior , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA 1/3] Linespec rewrite: Parsing References: <4F67A319.4090608@redhat.com> <4F6DC651.6060704@gmail.com> <4F6E0319.1080100@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:26:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Daniel Jacobowitz's message of "Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:39:41 -0400") Message-ID: <87r4wfs56s.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/msg00871.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz writes: Daniel> This is the change of behavior I think most likely to blow up. Daniel> -break-insert proxies straight through to the CLI break command; have Daniel> you checked what various other IDEs send today? Daniel> Is a special case (yeah, I know) for a quoted function ending in Daniel> :[0-9]* practical? Keith, could you do this check? I was hoping we could get away with this change. It seemed clearly sane to me, but apparently front-end authors disagree :) If it is just Code::Blocks, then it sounds like they have a fix already and we could go forward. For Plan B I think we can treat quotes differently and preserve compatibility. I'd rather not do this, but I think compatibility is more important than cleanliness. Tom