From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20085 invoked by alias); 15 May 2014 20:03:02 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 20027 invoked by uid 89); 15 May 2014 20:03:01 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: rock.gnat.com Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 15 May 2014 20:03:00 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DECFE11616B; Thu, 15 May 2014 16:02:58 -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 ClFkmmjqbU-g; Thu, 15 May 2014 16:02:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEFE311616A; Thu, 15 May 2014 16:02:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A937EE13F0; Thu, 15 May 2014 13:02:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 20:03:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Keith Seitz Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org ml" Subject: Re: [RFA 0/9] Explicit locations v2 - Introduction Message-ID: <20140515200258.GE4016@adacore.com> References: <536BC52D.80800@redhat.com> <20140515175649.GD4016@adacore.com> <537502D2.5050705@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <537502D2.5050705@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SW-Source: 2014-05/txt/msg00268.txt.bz2 > >But maybe this part wasn't part of this patch's objectives yet... > > Right. Linespecs don't support this yet, either. This patch was > simply to be at parity with linespec. When linespecs gain the > ability, explicit should, too. I'm not really all that sure whether this is something we want to try to support with the current linespec syntax! IMO, the current syntax seems OK and maybe even clever in its compactness, but in the end, the efforts you and others have been putting into making the parser work, lead me to believe that perhaps the future is with more explicit identification of each part of the location as you do here. -- Joel