From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31816 invoked by alias); 21 Dec 2011 07:32:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 31785 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Dec 2011 07:31:58 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 07:31:36 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE41B2BB183; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 02:31:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id uReFPxhQrWs6; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 02:31:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 717FD2BB143; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 02:31:35 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 595DD145615; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 23:31:24 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 07:41:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Tom Tromey , Keith Seitz Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA] Add handling for unqualified Ada operators in linespecs Message-ID: <20111221073124.GF23376@adacore.com> References: <1323810763-5563-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2011-12/txt/msg00712.txt.bz2 > Joel> This patch enhances the linespec parser to recognize unqualified > Joel> operator names in linespecs. This allows the user to insert a breakpoint > Joel> on operator "+" as follow, for instance: > Joel> (gdb) break "+" > > I think it is fine to allow this. Thanks! I have committed this patch. > I wonder whether this requires a documentation change. Given that from an Ada programer's perpective, there is nothing special about this name, so I do not think so. I checked the Ada part of the manual, and it didn't say that we were not supporting these breakpoints. So I think we're good. As stated earlier, I am open to further adjustments if it makes it easier to deal with the quotes... This could prepare the ground before Keith's patch comes in, rather than after. I just don't know enough of Keith's patch yet to be sure which approach to take. -- Joel