From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27711 invoked by alias); 29 Aug 2011 13:53:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 27685 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Aug 2011 13:53:54 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 13:53:39 +0000 Received: (qmail 12888 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2011 13:53:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO scottsdale.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 29 Aug 2011 13:53:38 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: =?iso-8859-1?q?Andr=E9_P=F6nitz?= Subject: Re: [RFA] 12843 Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 13:53:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.38-11-generic; KDE/4.7.0; x86_64; ; ) Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" References: <4E56C5A0.60802@redhat.com> <201108291112.53906.pedro@codesourcery.com> <201108291417.02082.andre.poenitz@nokia.com> In-Reply-To: <201108291417.02082.andre.poenitz@nokia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <201108291453.36039.pedro@codesourcery.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-08/txt/msg00565.txt.bz2 On Monday 29 August 2011 13:17:02, Andr=E9 P=F6nitz wrote: > On Monday 29 August 2011 12:12:53 ext Pedro Alves wrote: > > > Just using new flags for the parameters should do the trick in this c= ase. > >=20 > > Yeah, though I expect frontends to support letting the user specify > > manually where to insert the breakpoint (say, with a popup dialog > > where you write foo.exe:bar or something more complicated,=20 >=20 > It's the IDE's job to capture the user's intentions, i.e. either let the > user provide explicit information about the kind of the breakpoint=20 > (file and line, function, 'on throw' etc) directly in the dialog, or do=20 > the kind of linespec parsing gdb currently does (which feels pretty > unnatural for a "normal" GUI user who typically does not even want > to know what kind of debugging "backend" is used. I'd say the latter is arguable. Note I did not suggest that new switches like --file and --line would be bad, I even agreed! As long as the old form works, looks like everyone will be happy? Thanks, --=20 Pedro Alves