From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7769 invoked by alias); 14 Nov 2011 21:32:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 7754 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Nov 2011 21:32:09 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mel.act-europe.fr (HELO mel.act-europe.fr) (194.98.77.210) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 21:31:55 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-smtp.eu.adacore.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 925EECB02B3; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 22:31:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from mel.act-europe.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.eu.adacore.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vl7+jDkxFVuC; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 22:31:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from province.act-europe.fr (province.act-europe.fr [10.10.0.214]) by mel.act-europe.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id D178DCB02B5; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 22:31:46 +0100 (CET) Received: by province.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 560) id 9E76416480B; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 22:31:44 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 21:32:00 -0000 From: Jerome Guitton To: Tom Tromey Cc: Joel Brobecker , Jan Kratochvil , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Paul Hilfinger Subject: Re: RFA: implement ambiguous linespec proposal Message-ID: <20111114213144.GU85681@adacore.com> References: <20111104074543.GA13839@host1.jankratochvil.net> <20111109160529.GO14508@adacore.com> <20111109175623.GP14508@adacore.com> <20111109185935.GQ14508@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) 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: 2011-11/txt/msg00369.txt.bz2 Tom Tromey (tromey@redhat.com): > Yeah, this is actually what happens in multiple-symbols=ask mode: we > present the canonical forms to the user, and record as the filter the > one that he chooses. > > An implication of this is that we don't discriminate more finely than > what can be encoded in the canonical form. So, for example, one cannot > set a symbolic (as opposed to by-address) breakpoint at a single point > of inlining -- because the canonical form for the inlined function will > be identical across inlined instances. > > I don't know if that description makes any sense outside my head :) That makes sense in my head as well :) and it think that it is reasonable. If the "ask" mode discriminated between all points of inlining, that would most probably make it painful on many optimized applications. That is too say: making it asking too many questions would be a problem. Discriminating at the level of the canonical form seems to be a good compromise.