From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-87065-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 15616 invoked by alias); 13 Jan 2012 07:24:48 -0000
Received: (qmail 15596 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Jan 2012 07:24:47 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.3 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_SOFTFAIL
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il (HELO mtaout20.012.net.il) (80.179.55.166)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 07:24:28 +0000
Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LXQ00I0077H0P00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:24:26 +0200 (IST)
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.124.136.230]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LXQ00HEK78P9PE0@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:24:26 +0200 (IST)
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 08:08:00 -0000
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC stub-side break conditions 3/5]  GDB-side changes
In-reply-to: <m3boq8zjhv.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
To: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
Cc: palves@redhat.com, luis_gustavo@mentor.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Message-id: <834nw0kqts.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <4F05BA10.3090107@mentor.com> <83y5tlnrsx.fsf@gnu.org> <4F07779A.10808@mentor.com> <4F0F34EB.3000206@redhat.com> <m3boq8zjhv.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-01/txt/msg00462.txt.bz2

> From: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
> Cc: "Gustavo\, Luis" <luis_gustavo@mentor.com>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>,
>         gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:41:32 -0700
> 
> >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> >>> I suggest "cond.eval." instead of "condeval".  Better yet, how about
> >>> "evaluated by"?
> 
> >> Sounds good. I'll make that change.
> 
> Pedro> Isn't that only visible by MI?  Are spaces valid in MI field names?
> 
> Yes, it is only visible to MI.
> 
> The MI spec does not rule out spaces AFAICT, but I would rather we stick
> to names similar to those we already use.  On this basis, "condeval" is
> better than "cond.eval.".

How about "evaluated-by"?