From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6641 invoked by alias); 8 Jun 2009 15:37:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 6630 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Jun 2009 15:37:36 -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 mx2.redhat.com (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Jun 2009 15:37:26 +0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n58FbLZ4012644; Mon, 8 Jun 2009 11:37:22 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n58FbKE6002115; Mon, 8 Jun 2009 11:37:20 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-13-47.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.13.47]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n58FbJmb023008; Mon, 8 Jun 2009 11:37:20 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id ABE7B37817A; Mon, 8 Jun 2009 09:37:18 -0600 (MDT) To: "Pierre Muller" Cc: Subject: Re: [RFA] Fix bug in add_alias_cmd References: <006001c9e6be$6fad8fb0$4f08af10$@u-strasbg.fr> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 15:37:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <006001c9e6be$6fad8fb0$4f08af10$@u-strasbg.fr> (Pierre Muller's message of "Sat\, 6 Jun 2009 17\:49\:53 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (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: 2009-06/txt/msg00180.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Pierre" == Pierre Muller writes: Pierre> This is due to "bu" being an alias command of "ubreak" Pierre> for xdb options, but "ubreak" doesn't seem to exist anywhere Pierre> and I found no trace of it anywhere is the sources :( Pierre> I fact after looking at the sources, it appears to me Pierre> that the assertion itself is wrong. Pierre> prehookee should also be NULL, as the other pointers tested. Pierre> This small patch fixes it. Pierre> OK to commit? Yes, thanks. IMO, you could have put this patch in under the "obvious" rule. Pierre> PS: What should we do about Pierre> Could I also remove that line Pierre> if (xdb_commands) Pierre> { Pierre> add_com_alias ("ba", "break", class_breakpoint, 1); Pierre> add_com_alias ("bu", "ubreak", class_breakpoint, 1); Pierre> } You can just delete the "bu" line. If you want you could do some archaeology to see whether ubreak ever existed and, if so, when and why it was removed. Tom