Re: Support for "break *ADDRESS thread THREADNO"

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 11:35:29AM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> 
> > > Why was it done like this? because "*ADDRESS" is interpreted as an
> > > expression in the current language, or is there some other reason?
> > 
> > I assume so.  It is parsed as an expression, not just an address; for
> > instance "break *thread" would actually work if thread is a pointer to
> > a function.
> 
>  I think the actual problem is the expression parser cannot be told to 
> stop successfully on an unparseable token as long as the expression 
> collected so far is valid and let the caller deal with that.  AFAICS the 
> parser can only stop on a string terminator or optionally a comma, 
> otherwise it issues an error.

And - can yacc do that?

Are you sure that there's no C expression that's valid with and without
a trailing identifier, by the way?  I certainly find that believable,
but I haven't thought about it too hard.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC