From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14827 invoked by alias); 5 Jul 2011 21:08:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 14819 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Jul 2011 21:08:38 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.9 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; Tue, 05 Jul 2011 21:08:22 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p65L8KPt010946 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 5 Jul 2011 17:08:20 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p65L8JRY029882; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 17:08:20 -0400 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 p65L8IEP027367; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 17:08:18 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] canonical linespec and multiple breakpoints ... References: <20110505162855.GA2546@adacore.com> <83bozgmhil.fsf@gnu.org> <83k4dcd1bh.fsf@gnu.org> <83fwmpqjem.fsf@gnu.org> <83d3hopink.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 21:46:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <83d3hopink.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Tue, 05 Jul 2011 23:38:39 +0300") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (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: 2011-07/txt/msg00176.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Eli" == Eli Zaretskii writes: >> I don't think it is necessary. "watch" doesn't take a linespec >> argument. Eli> But they can be ambiguous as well. Ok, that is true, but I am not proposing also tackling expression ambiguity at the same time. I think it is too difficult. Tom