From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20749 invoked by alias); 13 Jan 2012 14:29:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 20740 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Jan 2012 14:29:32 -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; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 14:29:16 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0DETB6a017870 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:29:11 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0DETA2m011770; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:29:11 -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 q0DET8Av020035; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:29:09 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: palves@redhat.com, luis_gustavo@mentor.com, 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> <834nw0kqts.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 14:33:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <834nw0kqts.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:24:31 +0200") 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/msg00478.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Eli" == Eli Zaretskii writes: >> 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.". Eli> How about "evaluated-by"? Works for me. Tom