Re: [RFA/PATCH] breakpoint.c: fix until command

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 05:12:50PM -0500, Elena Zannoni wrote:
> 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 <line>"
>  >   "until-first <line>"
>  >   "until -first <line>"
>  > ?
>  > 
>  > 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.

Yeah, that was my basic idea.

>  > 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'.

The problem is, neither to or through makes sense to me as an option; I
can't figure out what it will do.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer