Re: [PATCH 32/40] Make "break foo" find "A::foo", A::B::foo", etc. [C++ and wild matching]

Pedro Alves
2017-11-28T00:21:07Z

On 11/28/2017 12:01 AM, Keith Seitz wrote:
> On 11/22/2017 08:48 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> On 08/09/2017 12:48 AM, Keith Seitz wrote:
>>> On 06/02/2017 05:22 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>>
>>> I think this would read better if it read: "This behavior may be overridden
>>> by using the \"-qualified\" flag and specifying a fully qualified name."
>>> [I am not a fan of using informal writing in documentation.]
>>
>> How about the even simpler:
>>
>> @@ -15295,7 +15295,10 @@ Explicit locations are similar to linespecs but use an option/argument\n\
>> syntax to specify location parameters.\n\
>> Example: To specify the start of the label named \"the_top\" in the\n\
>> function \"fact\" in the file \"factorial.c\", use \"-source factorial.c\n\
>> --function fact -label the_top\".\n"
>> +-function fact -label the_top\".\n\
>> +For C++, \"-function\" matches functions and methods by name, ignoring\n\
>> +missing leading specifiers (namespaces and classes).\n\
>> +\"-qualified\" matches functions and methods by fully qualified name.\n"
>>
>
> Simple is good!

:-) If you look at v2, you'll notice that that sentence was completely
rewritten though. :-P

> If I've read my catch-up mail correctly, there's been a change of plan here.

Yup. I've implemented your suggestion and posted it today:
https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2017-11/msg00689.html

Actually, I've just now posted a v2.1 to fix "save breakpoints":
https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2017-11/msg00709.html
so make sure to read that one instead.

So if you could skim that, and let me know if I've addressed
everything, I'd appreciate it.

> So I'll just respond to the relevant parts not addressed in follow-ups.
> If I've missed something, don't hesitate to point them out to me. [You know
> where to find me.]
>
>> Do you see "-qualified" being an alternative to "-function"
>> instead of a flag as a blocker?
>>
>> Please let me know.
>
> I don't think this is relevant anymore, but just in case: Do *not* delay the
> next release for this. 8.1 absolutely *needs* this patch set.
>
>> Here's the current/updated patch.
>
> That all looks okay to me. [TBH, I've just diffed this with the previous.] I will look to the follow-on immediately.

Thanks!

--
Pedro Alves