From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-68615-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 27297 invoked by alias); 24 Nov 2009 10:33:03 -0000
Received: (qmail 27257 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Nov 2009 10:33:02 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 	tests=BAYES_00,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:32:55 +0000
Received: (qmail 16923 invoked from network); 24 Nov 2009 10:32:53 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.101?) (ams@127.0.0.2)   by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 24 Nov 2009 10:32:53 -0000
Message-ID: <4B0BB652.3080303@codesourcery.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:33:00 -0000
From: Andrew Stubbs <ams@codesourcery.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-GB; rv:1.9.1.1) Gecko/20090715 Thunderbird/3.0b3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org,   "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@codesourcery.com>,  Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: Fix "break *EXP thread NUM"
References: <20091123212736.GA3828@caradoc.them.org>
In-Reply-To: <20091123212736.GA3828@caradoc.them.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-11/txt/msg00522.txt.bz2

On 23/11/09 21:27, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> In this patch, I have taken advantage of the fact that even if you
> have a local variable named "thread", there is no valid C expression
> which has a variable name, whitespace, and an integer or floating
> point constant.  So "thread [0-9]" can also safely be treated
> as an expression terminator.
>
> Does anyone see a problem with this approach?

Unfortunately, I can. :(

It's also valid to say, for example:

   (gdb) b main t 999
   Unknown thread 999.

or

   (gdb) b main thread -10
   Unknown thread -10.

or indeed

   (gdb) b main thread +10
   Unknown thread 10.

Hex and octal are also allowed, but since they always start with zero, I 
think you have them covered.

Andrew