From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29888 invoked by alias); 3 Mar 2010 18:00:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 29863 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Mar 2010 18:00:32 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 03 Mar 2010 18:00:27 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o23I0Q11008510 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2010 13:00:26 -0500 Received: from [IPv6:::1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o23I0LRm032560 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 3 Mar 2010 13:00:23 -0500 Message-ID: <4B8EA3B5.6080504@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 18:00:00 -0000 From: Keith Seitz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100120 Fedora/3.0.1-1.fc11 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tromey@redhat.com CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] More linespec quoting "fixes" References: <4B85A3BF.8010001@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2010-03/txt/msg00110.txt.bz2 On 02/26/2010 03:02 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: > My real question is whether we want to do this. We've talked a little > bit about rewriting linespec to be less horrible... will supporting more > syntax make this too hard? I'm open to breaking compatibility a bit -- > but I think there is a limit to what we can do there, based on what is > documented. I don't really have an answer for this. This is one of those areas where the documentation doesn't explain everything in detail. In an ideal world, I would get rid of quoting entirely (or at least try), but that's a debate for another time. With this patch, I was simply attempting to address the issue that single quotes are not handled in the filename/"first half" of the linespec, and I could find no reason why they should not. [And if we keep quoting in linespecs, I cannot think why we would not allow any part of them to be quoted -- consider filenames with spaces (yich).] In the end, I was attempting to rectify this behavior with CVS HEAD: (gdb) list 'foo.c':1 No source file named foo.c'. Keith