From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Fernando Nasser To: Andrew Cagney Cc: David Taylor , gdb-patches@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: [RFA] parse_frame_specification (stack.c) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 12:57:00 -0000 Message-id: <3AA3FCEC.AABDDE25@redhat.com> References: <200103051707.MAA01373@texas.cygnus.com> <3AA3CC5F.9FE84042@redhat.com> <3AA3F900.39AF9860@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-03/msg00084.html Andrew Cagney wrote: > > Fernando Nasser wrote: > > > > David, > > > > The real problem here is that there is an ambiguity in this command > > argument specification. If a frame is specified as an address, it > > should be proceeded by a "*" as we do in the break command. > > > > It seems that problems like this have been encountered before. here is > > the comment in the code that refers to s similar situation: > > See: > > http://sources.redhat.com/gdb/onlinedocs/gdb_7.html#SEC43 > > I believe David is preserving documented behavour. > You got that right. I mentioned that we could fix the syntax (manual included) so it is not any longer ambiguous. Instead of inventing a syntax, I suggested that we do as we already do with breakpoints. Numbers are breakpoints *NNNNNNNN are addresses. I don't particularly like the breakpoints syntax. I wish people had used "#N" to indicate a breakpoint number or a stack level. That would also make things unambiguous. But, anyway, frames at very low addresses are not very likely so I guess we should just leave things as they are. -- Fernando Nasser Red Hat Canada Ltd. E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com 2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300 Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9