From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 110023 invoked by alias); 13 Dec 2017 13:17:37 -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 109568 invoked by uid 89); 13 Dec 2017 13:17:36 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=dreamt X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 13:17:34 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6166B5D9E8; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 13:17:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn04.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.4]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AFA57BA4B; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 13:17:32 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH] python: Add qualified parameter to gdb.Breakpoint To: Simon Marchi References: <1512686013-24658-1-git-send-email-simon.marchi@ericsson.com> <18e86b00-7659-e57f-e650-fae62ebf1d2c@redhat.com> <7f59352579a659f3ee96f6a9e5404f9b@polymtl.ca> Cc: Simon Marchi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <2c2971c3-dd3f-1c92-4a8f-60c69aea65cf@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 13:17:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <7f59352579a659f3ee96f6a9e5404f9b@polymtl.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2017-12/txt/msg00300.txt.bz2 On 12/08/2017 06:42 PM, Simon Marchi wrote: >> So we either need to clarify that in the Python bits too, >> or some do some xref'ing. > > Agreed, I didn't like that wording either. I had only found the > Linespec Locations page, which doesn't specifically say "fully-qualified > name", but mentions free-function (though it's in an example, not a > formal definition). How is this? > > The optional @var{qualified} argument is a boolean that allows interpreting > the function passed in @code{spec} as a fully-qualified name. It is > equivalent > to @code{break}'s @code{-qualified} flag (@pxref{Linespec Locations} and > @ref{Explicit Locations}). Thanks, that looks fine. (I thought I had replied earlier, but looks like I dreamt it.) Thanks, Pedro Alves