This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [RFA 1/2] Linespec rewrite (update 2)


On 03/30/2012 08:33 AM, Tom Tromey wrote:
"Keith" == Keith Seitz<keiths@redhat.com> writes:

Keith> I don't know. The whole comma thing is undocumented. The test suite Keith> does contain list ranges. That's how I originally discovered Keith> this. I've removed the list mode restriction, though, and it doesn't Keith> affect test results at all.

You can write a test case using python that calls gdb.decode_line and
examines the remainder of the line.

I'll see about writing a test that does this.


Comma-termination isn't documented but I think it has to be preserved
anyway.

Already done. :-)


Keith>  Yes, we can end up with a canonical form like "function:+5" or
Keith>  "file:+5". The former is permitted (per recent maintainer request)
Keith>  because we currently ignore the offset. [It is unprocessed in
Keith>  convert_linespec_to_sals.] I'm not a fan of this,

What is the rationale for having a linespec where parts are ignored?
I couldn't think of a use for it.  And, if current cvs rejects it, then
it seems like it is interfering with a useful future feature as well.

I agree, but perhaps I simply misunderstood Joel?


http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2012-03/msg00904.html

Keith


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]