From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22292 invoked by alias); 8 Jan 2003 00:12:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 22283 invoked from network); 8 Jan 2003 00:12:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 8 Jan 2003 00:12:59 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h080CdS01449; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 18:12:39 -0600 Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 00:12:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200301080012.h080CdS01449@duracef.shout.net> To: carlton@math.stanford.edu, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfc] plans for linespec.c Cc: ezannoni@redhat.com, fnasser@redhat.com, jimb@redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00067.txt.bz2 Hi David, Would it be reasonable for you to double your testing and test stabs+ as well as dwarf-2? I'm not worried about gcc 2.95.3, gcc HEAD, and so on, because eventually my dragnet catches that stuff and I feed it back. But there are enough differences between dwarf-2 and stabs+ that I would be more comfortable if you tested with both before committing symbol-manipulation patches. Other than that, I'm all for your plan of attack on decode_line_1. Michael C