From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25894 invoked by alias); 27 Mar 2012 14:54:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 25884 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Mar 2012 14:54:43 -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; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:54:30 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 698B11C69FE; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:54:29 -0400 (EDT) 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 W9q+fYUOfU2x; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:54:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3270E1C69FA; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:54:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1370D145616; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 07:54:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:54:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Keith Seitz Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org ml" Subject: Re: [RFA 1/2] Linespec rewrite (update 2) Message-ID: <20120327145425.GD2701@adacore.com> References: <4F70F8F7.503@redhat.com> <20120327135623.GC2701@adacore.com> <4F71CEF5.8030805@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F71CEF5.8030805@redhat.com> 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: 2012-03/txt/msg00907.txt.bz2 > As you can see, the ":10" and ":25" were simply ignored. I've > stepped through the code, and decode_variable will see "\"+\":10\n", > but ada_name_for_lookup will return "+". From there on out, the > ":10" is lost. Hah! I thought that the line numbers were because GDB tries to find the first line that matches, starting from the given one... > Unless I'm missing something, this appears to be another special > case of maintaining bug-for-bug compatibility. I think that the syntax itself should be accepted, and that it's not a bug (operators are functions). But we probably do not want to perpetuate the bug where the line number is ignored :-). > How would you like me to fix this? I was hoping that we'd be able to handle this in the parser? I am not completely familiar with the new code yet, so it's just a wild guess. I am almost done with the extension of operator_bp.exp; I'll send it when I've removed all the typos and thinkos... Thanks! -- Joel