From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-42696-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 26201 invoked by alias); 23 Oct 2013 18:08:39 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 26179 invoked by uid 89); 23 Oct 2013 18:08:38 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-HELO: mtaout22.012.net.il
Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il (HELO mtaout22.012.net.il) (80.179.55.172) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 18:08:37 +0000
Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MV400300VMEAE00@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for gdb@sourceware.org; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 21:08:27 +0300 (IDT)
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MV400382VQ23U50@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 21:08:27 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 18:08:00 -0000
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Expanding macros in breakpoint conditions
In-reply-to: <5268085E.2020607@redhat.com>
To: Keith Seitz <keiths@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb@sourceware.org
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Message-id: <83d2mvj1wm.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <83vc0qk1jx.fsf@gnu.org> <87y55mk0tg.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <83k3h3j4vo.fsf@gnu.org> <5268085E.2020607@redhat.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2013-10/txt/msg00120.txt.bz2

> Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 10:33:18 -0700
> From: Keith Seitz <keiths@redhat.com>
> CC: gdb@sourceware.org
> 
> My original submission for the linespec rewrite did actually do this, 
> but to maintain backward compatibility, I was asked to remove it.

Makes sense.

> Perhaps a warning or complaint might be a suitable compromise until this 
> is properly implemented?

Yes, a warning is certainly good enough.  It would have caught my
attention right there and then.

Thanks.