From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-83320-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 27128 invoked by alias); 29 Aug 2011 21:13:15 -0000
Received: (qmail 27112 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Aug 2011 21:13:14 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.4 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,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; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 21:13:00 +0000
Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11])	by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p7TLD0Aj013303	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK)	for <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 17:13:00 -0400
Received: from valrhona.uglyboxes.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1])	by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p7TLCvf9019851	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);	Mon, 29 Aug 2011 17:12:59 -0400
Message-ID: <4E5C00D9.9060401@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 21:13:00 -0000
From: Keith Seitz <keiths@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110816 Thunderbird/6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [RFA] 12843
References: <4E56C5A0.60802@redhat.com> <4E57E9EC.8060706@redhat.com>	<m3hb54rnyh.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>	<201108290920.40589.andre.poenitz@nokia.com> <m3r544dmra.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <m3r544dmra.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
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: 2011-08/txt/msg00580.txt.bz2

On 08/29/2011 12:46 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:

> My first reaction is against this, but I don't have a particularly good
> explanation for that.  I will think about it.

Is there actually any reason to require a flag? Couldn't we simply allow 
either a flag-based location _or_ a linespec, but not both, i.e.,

-insert-break -file foo.c -function my_function

OR

-insert-break foo.c:my_function

but not

-insert-break -file foo.c my_function

This would allow backward compatibility and new/better functionality.

I wouldn't be surprised if IDEs adopted the flag-based version very quickly.

Keith