From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1894 invoked by alias); 28 Nov 2011 16:17:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 1871 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Nov 2011 16:16:58 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,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; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 16:16:42 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pASGGT8J003260 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:16:29 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pASGGSHK027194; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:16:28 -0500 Received: from barimba (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 pASGGQgx025066; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:16:26 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Jerome Guitton , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: GDB 7.4 branching status? (2011-11-23) References: <20111123163917.GA13809@adacore.com> <20111123232406.GQ13809@adacore.com> <20111124105603.GA91879@adacore.com> <20111124163304.GR13809@adacore.com> Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 16:17:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20111124163304.GR13809@adacore.com> (Joel Brobecker's message of "Thu, 24 Nov 2011 08:33:04 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.90 (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: 2011-11/txt/msg00776.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Joel" == Joel Brobecker writes: Jerome> What about having the same heuristics as expand_line_sal used to have Jerome> for this kind of issue? At least we would have the exact same behavior Jerome> as before... Joel> We proposed that as well, and I am fine with that approach too. But Joel> we have to bear in mind that we will be missing some location in Joel> some (corner only?) cases. Joel> So, for now, either approach is fine with me, maybe with a slight Joel> preference for possibly accepting more locations in order to avoid Joel> missing some. So prefer keeping the previous the previous heuristic, Joel> which I think makes sense as well - no surprise in a way. What do Joel> others think? I think this makes sense. I will implement it today or tomorrow. Also this made me remember that I intended to remove expand_line_sal, but forgot. So, I will do that too. Tom