From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1358 invoked by alias); 1 Feb 2003 22:08:10 -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 1350 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2003 22:08:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.hccnet.nl) (62.251.0.13) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 1 Feb 2003 22:08:09 -0000 Received: from charis.vernstok by smtp.hccnet.nl via fia16-123.dsl.hccnet.nl [62.251.123.16] with ESMTP id h11M82qO026478 (8.12.5/2.00); Sat, 1 Feb 2003 23:08:03 +0100 (MET) Received: from jelmer by charis.vernstok with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18f3dY-0004SI-00; Sat, 01 Feb 2003 20:49:12 +0100 Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 22:08:00 -0000 From: Jelmer Vernooij To: Eli Zaretskii , Elena Zannoni Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Andrew Cagney Subject: Re: [PATCH] mi-symbol-* Message-ID: <20030201194912.GA17120@vernstok.dyndns.org> References: <20021105204529.GA11137@charis.vernstok> <15818.39944.755909.902776@localhost.redhat.com> <20021105204529.GA11137@charis.vernstok> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <15818.39944.755909.902776@localhost.redhat.com> X-Operating-System: Linux aurelia 2.4.18-bf2.4 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00036.txt.bz2 On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 08:56:23AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote about 'Re: [PATCH] mi-symbol-*': > The documentation patch is approved, but please take care of these minor > problems before it is committed: > > - Please break all lines inside @smallexample that are longer than 64 > characters, otherwise they will produce warnings from TeX and ugly > results in the printed manual. (You can tell in a note that the > broken line is one long line.) > > - Why did you add so many empty lines? IMHO, this produces unpleasant > results, both in the on-line (Info and HTML) and printed formats. > > - Where you say "pattern", please add that the pattern is a regular > expression. All fixed; is the update ok? On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 11:59:52AM -0500, Elena Zannoni wrote about 'Re: [PATCH] mi-symbol-*': > Info_line should return the core addr ranges for a given line number. > You instead have implemented a different behavior: given a line number > name, print the line number which we just gave as input, and the file name. > Also in the usage and error messages, the use of the word 'symbol' is a bit > inappropriate, because the argument of the command is not a symbol name. Is there any documentation about the internals of gdb and what the various terms mean? I do have some knowledge of how executables are structured, but I don't know any details or specific terms. > > +enum mi_cmd_result > > +mi_cmd_symbol_info_function (char *command, char **argv, int argc) > > +{ > > + char *function = ""; > > + struct symtabs_and_lines sals; > > + struct symbol *sym; > > + struct minimal_symbol *msym; > > + struct cleanup *old_chain; > > + char *args, **canonical; > > + > > + if (argc != 1) > > + error ("mi_cmd_symbol_info_function: Usage: SYMBOL"); > > + > > + args = argv[0]; > > + > > + sals = decode_line_1 (&args, 1, NULL, 0, &canonical); > > this one could be ok, but there is contradictory information in the > current documentation. It was documented as taking a symbol and > returning the function where the symbol is in, however it suggest that > it should provide the functionality that a gdbtk function > provides. That gdbtk function however takes a linespec as argument. > > I think this mi command needs to be revisited. > So, wait until the issue is cleared. Any news on the interface? Thanks, Jelmer