From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13062 invoked by alias); 14 Mar 2011 14:03:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 13051 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Mar 2011 14:03:43 -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; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 14:03:38 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p2EE3ZFO001579 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:03:35 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p2EE3Zus024228; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:03:35 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (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 p2EE3Yaq032323; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:03:35 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 96497378CA1; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 08:03:34 -0600 (MDT) From: Tom Tromey To: pmuldoon@redhat.com Cc: Doug Evans , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] [python] Implement stop_p for gdb.Breakpoint References: Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 14:49:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Phil Muldoon's message of "Sun, 13 Mar 2011 19:39:43 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (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: 2011-03/txt/msg00728.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Phil" == Phil Muldoon writes: Phil> I remember a bug about this in 2.5 that did accept const definitions Phil> but would later die. (And a patch was checked in. Can't remember by Phil> who though). Anyway, Python 2.6 rejects all of the above with: Thanks, I never remember that. It is ok without that const. Could you file a bug against Python, like Jan suggested? Tom