From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19662 invoked by alias); 30 Mar 2012 17:09:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 19654 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Mar 2012 17:09:33 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO 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; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 17:09:21 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA7011C6177; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 13:09:20 -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 MjdaXtEPmKFW; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 13:09:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 947E11C6162; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 13:09:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2D743145616; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:09:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 17:09:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Tom Tromey Cc: Keith Seitz , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org ml" Subject: Re: [RFA 1/2] Linespec rewrite (update 2) Message-ID: <20120330170913.GT2701@adacore.com> References: <4F70F8F7.503@redhat.com> <87zkb0wj1x.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <4F74B583.6090008@redhat.com> <87obrertls.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <4F75D859.1010907@redhat.com> <87r4waqc38.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87r4waqc38.fsf@fleche.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/msg01051.txt.bz2 > I read the followup more as a request for the feature to be added: > > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2012-03/msg00907.html > > However, I think that it is better to have this patch be as > behavior-unchanging as reasonably possible and leave feature additions > for follow-up patches. My take on this is that the linespec was accepted before, and now it is going to generate an error. What Keith highlighted was the fact that the line number portion is currently ignored, which is definitely a bug. I don't mind if we preserve the bug of ignoring the line number, but I am a little less comfortable with error-ing out. I don't mind if we create a temporary regression in that linespec if that makes things easier. But it would be nice to be able to not let it linger too long. I am hoping to have some time to look at this maybe mid-April. -- Joel