Re: [python] Allow explicit locations in breakpoints.

[Keith Seitz <keiths at redhat dot com>]

On 08/23/2017 06:58 AM, Phil Muldoon wrote:

> diff --git a/gdb/python/py-breakpoint.c b/gdb/python/py-breakpoint.c
> index 6156eb6179..8431bed939 100644
> --- a/gdb/python/py-breakpoint.c
> +++ b/gdb/python/py-breakpoint.c
> @@ -681,7 +681,7 @@ bppy_init (PyObject *self, PyObject *args, PyObject *kwargs)
>  	case bp_breakpoint:
>  	  {
>  	    event_location_up location
> -	      = string_to_event_location_basic (&copy, current_language);
> +	      = string_to_event_location (&copy, current_language);
>  	    create_breakpoint (python_gdbarch,
>  			       location.get (), NULL, -1, NULL,
>  			       0,

This binds python interfaces to the CLI, and I don't think we want that. I would have expected (perhaps naively) to see explicit locations supported using a more natural python convention, such as using PyArg_ParseTupleAndKeywords.

For example, in MI (mi_cmd_break_insert_1) , we do not use string_to_event_location. We support MI-centric calling conventions by using mi_getopt for argument processing. While MI does use the same option names, they don't (or didn't) have to be. The comments for string_to_event_location should be clearer that this is a CLI-specific implementation. [Perhaps that entire function could be moved to somewhere in cli/?]

I admit, like the MI case, it is almost busywork, but it does (at least) isolate those interfaces from any internal API churn that GDB might undergo.

WDYT?

Keith