Re: [RFA 1/2] Linespec rewrite (update 2)

[Keith Seitz <keiths@redhat.com>]

On 03/30/2012 08:33 AM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Keith" == Keith Seitz<keiths@redhat.com>  writes:
>
> Keith>  I don't know. The whole comma thing is undocumented. The test suite
> Keith>  does contain list ranges. That's how I originally discovered
> Keith>  this. I've removed the list mode restriction, though, and it doesn't
> Keith>  affect test results at all.
>
> You can write a test case using python that calls gdb.decode_line and
> examines the remainder of the line.

I'll see about writing a test that does this.

> Comma-termination isn't documented but I think it has to be preserved
> anyway.

Already done. :-)

> Keith>  Yes, we can end up with a canonical form like "function:+5" or
> Keith>  "file:+5". The former is permitted (per recent maintainer request)
> Keith>  because we currently ignore the offset. [It is unprocessed in
> Keith>  convert_linespec_to_sals.] I'm not a fan of this,
>
> What is the rationale for having a linespec where parts are ignored?
> I couldn't think of a use for it.  And, if current cvs rejects it, then
> it seems like it is interfering with a useful future feature as well.

I agree, but perhaps I simply misunderstood Joel?

http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2012-03/msg00904.html

Keith