From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11324 invoked by alias); 8 Jan 2003 22:08:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 11303 invoked from network); 8 Jan 2003 22:08:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 8 Jan 2003 22:08:40 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h08LeiB29987 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 16:40:44 -0500 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h08M8Sa21995 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 17:08:28 -0500 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (romulus-int.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.46]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h08M8Re13494 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 17:08:27 -0500 Received: by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 469) id 70015FF79; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 17:12:50 -0500 (EST) From: Elena Zannoni MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15900.41570.285605.939997@localhost.redhat.com> Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 22:08:00 -0000 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA/PATCH] breakpoint.c: fix until command In-Reply-To: <20030107043155.GA5806@nevyn.them.org> References: <3E14F768.DA13CB07@redhat.com> <15893.40776.758960.171190@localhost.redhat.com> <3E1621FF.A822AD5C@redhat.com> <15894.9086.849437.238762@localhost.redhat.com> <3E162537.63F529DF@redhat.com> <20030104015356.GA23728@nevyn.them.org> <15897.65265.595543.449396@localhost.redhat.com> <3E1A2CE3.9325A6F@redhat.com> <15898.12832.906305.726378@localhost.redhat.com> <3E1A36AD.78DAFA63@redhat.com> <20030107043155.GA5806@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00344.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > > > > > > I'd be happier if those two behaviors had different names, but the > > > > > > logical name I'd give to both of them is "until", so I guess we'll just > > > > > > have to live with this. (3) is meaningful when inside the function > > > > > > too, and with this scheme there's no way to express that without using > > > > > > breakpoints; but I think that's a small loss. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually I start to believe that we need 2 separate commands. One > > > > > would do the current behavior the other would be w/o frame check. We > > > > > already have 'jump' (and it means something different). Maybe 'goto'? > > > > > I can't think of a decent name. 'reach', 'get to'? > > > > > > > > run-to? > > > > I like the idea of restricting "until" to the current function, > > > > and using a separate command for locations outside the current function. > > > > (or inside, if you want the effect of a temporary breakpoint). > > > > This would remove the ambiguity. > > > > > > I think that if we can find a decent name, there is more agreement > > > towards separating the behaviors. Except that 'run' in gdb means start > > > from the beginning, so runto can be ambiguous (it is also used in the > > > testsuite a lot with the meaning of start over). > > > > Ah, that's right. I was thinking of that usage, but I forgot > > that it starts from the beginning. > > > > Doesn't the testsuite also have a similar command that means > > "set a breakpoint here and continue till you get there"? > > Yes, it's gdb_continue_to_breakpoint, but it's not quite the same. > > I asked my official layperson for ideas on what to call this, and got > back: > "until first foo.c:40" > "until current foo.c:40" > > With a little massaging, how about one of: > "until first " > "until-first " > "until -first " > ? > > Me, I'm partial to the third form; then you can have: > until -first func > until -current func > I am not clear what first vs. current means. You mean first as 'first time you cross' that given location? So you would drop the "called from the current frame" restriction. > And make one of those the default. But this is risks starting the > argument about syntax of options to CLI commands all over again. It > seems to me that these are both logical things to do for "until", so > why not call them both "until", if we can agree on a syntax? > I don't much like having options, it's too much to type. :-) I think we should leave the until as it is, name and all. Or it will confuse people even more. I like 'to' as a possible simple name for the other form. Or 'through'. Elena > Just a thought. > > -- > Daniel Jacobowitz > MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer