From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25687 invoked by alias); 30 Jul 2009 16:02:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 25290 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Jul 2009 16:02:51 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:02:43 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n6UG2dBM030243 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:02:39 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n6UG2bQD010326 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:02:37 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n6UG2akA013192; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:02:36 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 208475081C4; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 10:02:36 -0600 (MDT) To: Vladimir Prus Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Implement -break-commands References: <200907271303.13335.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <200907301023.45893.vladimir@codesourcery.com> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: Tom Tromey Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:57:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <200907301023.45893.vladimir@codesourcery.com> (Vladimir Prus's message of "Thu\, 30 Jul 2009 10\:23\:45 +0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2009-07/txt/msg00743.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Volodya" == Vladimir Prus writes: Volodya> This revision addresses all the comments above, except that Volodya> request for 'closure' pointer to read_command_lines_1 if Volodya> addressed by a comment saying why we don't do that. There still isn't a header comment on read_next_line. Just something like "helper function for use with recurse_read_control_structure" would be fine. This is ok with the addition of a comment. thanks, Tom