From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8534 invoked by alias); 12 Jan 2012 21:41:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 8526 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Jan 2012 21:41:54 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.0 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; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 21:41:39 +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 q0CLfZ8D014202 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:41:35 -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 q0CLfZ6d008276; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:41:35 -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 q0CLfXdD021115; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:41:33 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Pedro Alves Cc: "Gustavo\, Luis" , Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC stub-side break conditions 3/5] GDB-side changes References: <4F05BA10.3090107@mentor.com> <83y5tlnrsx.fsf@gnu.org> <4F07779A.10808@mentor.com> <4F0F34EB.3000206@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 22:20:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4F0F34EB.3000206@redhat.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Thu, 12 Jan 2012 19:30:51 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.92 (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: 2012-01/txt/msg00435.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: >>> I suggest "cond.eval." instead of "condeval". Better yet, how about >>> "evaluated by"? >> Sounds good. I'll make that change. Pedro> Isn't that only visible by MI? Are spaces valid in MI field names? Yes, it is only visible to MI. The MI spec does not rule out spaces AFAICT, but I would rather we stick to names similar to those we already use. On this basis, "condeval" is better than "cond.eval.". Tom