[RFA]: pending breakpoint support [1/3]
Jeff Johnston
jjohnstn@redhat.com
Mon Feb 2 21:12:00 GMT 2004
Patch checked in. I have included the final patch here with the
reworded message.
-- Jeff J.
Jeff Johnston wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 05:45:55PM -0500, Jeff Johnston wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Well, therein lies the problem. The word "if" might or might not be
>>> part of the symbol. The
>>> regular logic relies on parsing out the symbol first and then
>>> looking at the aftermath. I don't have
>>> that luxury so I punt. It may be slightly confusing if the user
>>> does the scenario above, but the
>>> displayed pending breakpoint info is meant to be the "original
>>> breakpoint string" so I don't anticipate
>>> the user will object too much. Ok or do you have a better idea?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Right, I see. This is fine. The patch is OK to commit with the
>> "resolved" wording change - thanks for your patience!
>>
>>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: pbreak.patch1d
URL: <http://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/attachments/20040202/7e7b1f8c/attachment.ksh>
More information about the Gdb-patches
mailing list