From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 37062 invoked by alias); 29 Nov 2017 19:52:54 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 36562 invoked by uid 89); 29 Nov 2017 19:52:54 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KB_WAM_FROM_NAME_SINGLEWORD,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=Alright, hesitant, hesitate X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 19:52:52 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFEC085543 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 19:52:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn04.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.4]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 158D15C269; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 19:52:50 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2.1 2/3] Make "break foo" find "A::foo", A::B::foo", etc. [C++ and wild matching] To: Keith Seitz , GDB Patches References: <1511802824-643-1-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <1511802824-643-3-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <43559340-27d5-75b3-7f61-4156eca2c3b7@redhat.com> <4a8ceac3-6711-7831-66e1-2fc4e138bf4b@redhat.com> <548d66d2-d47c-d2c1-174e-d224ae297e7a@redhat.com> From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 19:52:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <548d66d2-d47c-d2c1-174e-d224ae297e7a@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2017-11/txt/msg00793.txt.bz2 On 11/28/2017 05:35 PM, Keith Seitz wrote: > On 11/28/2017 04:39 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: >> >> Alright, let me know what think of the above. > > I was just seeking a sanity check (*my* sanity). This is a similar situation to explicit locations. Not every `interface' has access to those yet, either. > > So, please, don't hesitate to push this! Yeah, I'm a bit hesitant, since I consider this a big change. :-) But I asked around on IRC to double-check if anyone had last-minute comments, and everyone seemed pretty cool about it, so I pushed it in now. Hurray! Thanks, Pedro Alves