This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 2/6] Introduce `pre_expanded sals'
- From: Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj at redhat dot com>
- To: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Pedro Alves <pedro at codesourcery dot com>, Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 15:05:34 -0300
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] Introduce `pre_expanded sals'
- References: <m3mxk6pvbs.fsf@redhat.com> <201104121218.08910.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20110412115308.GA384@host1.jankratochvil.net> <201104121430.24596.pedro@codesourcery.com> <m3vcun8xuo.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <m3zkjxdlnt.fsf@redhat.com> <m31ux0zz94.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <m3fwlgcypb.fsf@redhat.com> <m362mbyla7.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> writes:
> Sergio> All right, I see what you mean. Personally, I think that if this
> Sergio> behavior happens, then it means we should probably fix linespec in order
> Sergio> to evaluate the `probe:' part earlier.
>
> I hadn't thought of that. It seems insufficient to me, though. Suppose
> that "break probe:something" matches both a probe named "something" and
> a function in the executable "probe". In this case, the breakpoint will
> have to match both locations (due to the spec I'm implementing), but in
> a way the locations would have very different meanings.
Hm, ok. I was thinking superficially about the problem, and assuming
that we would only accept the `probe:' for stap probes. Anyway, you're
right, it would be much more difficult to handle this case.
> Sergio> As I said in the beginning, I'm OK with that change. But obviously I'm
> Sergio> not a maintainer, and I'm also an interested part in this being accepted
> Sergio> :-).
>
> I'm going to work on it then.
Thanks a lot!