From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27001 invoked by alias); 28 Nov 2017 00:21:07 -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 26972 invoked by uid 89); 28 Nov 2017 00:21:07 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KB_WAM_FROM_NAME_SINGLEWORD,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=hesitate X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 00:21:06 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07E052CE94C for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 00:21:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn04.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.4]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FDB4600D1; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 00:21:03 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH 32/40] Make "break foo" find "A::foo", A::B::foo", etc. [C++ and wild matching] To: Keith Seitz , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <1496406158-12663-1-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <1496406158-12663-33-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <024edecc-7bfa-08a4-de46-3536297f0654@redhat.com> <943402c5-0bbb-8ff7-66e3-5522256fbc1e@redhat.com> From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <0a9b24ee-e9c0-7c24-b44b-12d0130a2d38@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 00:21:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2017-11/txt/msg00710.txt.bz2 On 11/28/2017 12:01 AM, Keith Seitz wrote: > On 11/22/2017 08:48 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: >> On 08/09/2017 12:48 AM, Keith Seitz wrote: >>> On 06/02/2017 05:22 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: >>> >>> I think this would read better if it read: "This behavior may be overridden >>> by using the \"-qualified\" flag and specifying a fully qualified name." >>> [I am not a fan of using informal writing in documentation.] >> >> How about the even simpler: >> >> @@ -15295,7 +15295,10 @@ Explicit locations are similar to linespecs but use an option/argument\n\ >> syntax to specify location parameters.\n\ >> Example: To specify the start of the label named \"the_top\" in the\n\ >> function \"fact\" in the file \"factorial.c\", use \"-source factorial.c\n\ >> --function fact -label the_top\".\n" >> +-function fact -label the_top\".\n\ >> +For C++, \"-function\" matches functions and methods by name, ignoring\n\ >> +missing leading specifiers (namespaces and classes).\n\ >> +\"-qualified\" matches functions and methods by fully qualified name.\n" >> > > Simple is good! :-) If you look at v2, you'll notice that that sentence was completely rewritten though. :-P > If I've read my catch-up mail correctly, there's been a change of plan here. Yup. I've implemented your suggestion and posted it today: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2017-11/msg00689.html Actually, I've just now posted a v2.1 to fix "save breakpoints": https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2017-11/msg00709.html so make sure to read that one instead. So if you could skim that, and let me know if I've addressed everything, I'd appreciate it. > So I'll just respond to the relevant parts not addressed in follow-ups. > If I've missed something, don't hesitate to point them out to me. [You know > where to find me.] > >> Do you see "-qualified" being an alternative to "-function" >> instead of a flag as a blocker? >> >> Please let me know. > > I don't think this is relevant anymore, but just in case: Do *not* delay the > next release for this. 8.1 absolutely *needs* this patch set. > >> Here's the current/updated patch. > > That all looks okay to me. [TBH, I've just diffed this with the previous.] I will look to the follow-on immediately. Thanks! -- Pedro Alves