From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7922 invoked by alias); 9 Jan 2003 01:52:58 -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 7910 invoked from network); 9 Jan 2003 01:52:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 9 Jan 2003 01:52:54 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18WTku-0000xr-00; Wed, 08 Jan 2003 21:53:21 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18WRsW-0002CZ-00; Wed, 08 Jan 2003 20:53:04 -0500 Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 01:52:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Elena Zannoni Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA/PATCH] breakpoint.c: fix until command Message-ID: <20030109015304.GB8431@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Elena Zannoni , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <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> <15900.41570.285605.939997@localhost.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <15900.41570.285605.939997@localhost.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00359.txt.bz2 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 " > > "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. 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