From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5404 invoked by alias); 19 Nov 2013 14:40:05 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 5350 invoked by uid 89); 19 Nov 2013 14:40:04 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,RDNS_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from Unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 14:40:03 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAJEdqKR004452 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 19 Nov 2013 09:39:53 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAJEdp5u010983; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 09:39:52 -0500 Message-ID: <528B7837.2070307@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 15:05:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA GDB/MI] Help determine if GDB/MI command exists or not References: <528631F2.40408@redhat.com> <1384794719-20594-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <1384794719-20594-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg00535.txt.bz2 On 11/18/2013 05:11 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote: > - Path #2 implements Pedro's idea of adding an error code to > the "^error" result record. > > I took Pedro's patch nearly verbatim, removing the bits that > dealt with invalid command-line usage (this part is left for > another time, if the need becomes a little more explicit). > I did notice that the additonal variable looked an awful lot > like an error code, so I found it odd that we'd name if "error=" > in the patch. And then I realized that Pedro's first email did > say "code", so I assumed it was a brain fart, and fixed the patch > to use "code". Whoops, yeah. Thanks, -- Pedro Alves