From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21034 invoked by alias); 16 Nov 2011 14:46:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 21021 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Nov 2011 14:46:45 -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; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:46:31 +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 pAGEkSa1000454 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 16 Nov 2011 09:46:28 -0500 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 pAGEkRgf019423; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 09:46:27 -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 pAGEkOZk020374; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 09:46:25 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Yao Qi Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFA: implement ambiguous linespec proposal References: <20111028221459.GA28467@host1.jankratochvil.net> <20111104074543.GA13839@host1.jankratochvil.net> <4EC31FBA.9050706@codesourcery.com> Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:46:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4EC31FBA.9050706@codesourcery.com> (Yao Qi's message of "Wed, 16 Nov 2011 10:28:10 +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/msg00425.txt.bz2 Yao> I tried to apply this patch to FSF trunk, but there are some conflicts Yao> in breakpoint.c, valprint.c and symtab.c. Conflicts in the first two Yao> files are trivial to me, but conflict in symtab.c isn't. I noticed Jan Yao> and Pierre must have applied this patch, but I wonder how that happen. I'll rebase it today and send out a new patch. Tom