From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30565 invoked by alias); 14 Sep 2012 18:55:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 30556 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Sep 2012 18:55:06 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,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; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 18:54:44 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q8EIsgnY024538 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 14 Sep 2012 14:54:43 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q8EIsf3c020226 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 14 Sep 2012 14:54:42 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Yao Qi Cc: Subject: Re: [2nd try, RFC 0/2] Fix 'set remote XXX-limit -1' and 'set listisize' References: <1347160965-24089-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 18:55:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <1347160965-24089-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> (Yao Qi's message of "Sun, 9 Sep 2012 11:22:43 +0800") Message-ID: <87vcfgzb7y.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (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: 2012-09/txt/msg00291.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Yao" == Yao Qi writes: Yao> I feel that people are not convinced to add a new var_type Yao> var_zuinteger_unlimited, so I decide to fix the problem in another way Yao> (don't add new var_type). I thought it was fine; I think everybody is just very behind on patch review. But if you'd still rather go with this approach, let me know, and I'll look. Tom