From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22066 invoked by alias); 15 May 2014 18:09:28 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 22046 invoked by uid 89); 15 May 2014 18:09:27 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 15 May 2014 18:09:26 +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 (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s4FI9O1v006236 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 15 May 2014 14:09:24 -0400 Received: from valrhona.uglyboxes.com (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 s4FI9Mdb019428 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 15 May 2014 14:09:23 -0400 Message-ID: <537502D2.5050705@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 18:09:00 -0000 From: Keith Seitz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org ml" Subject: Re: [RFA 0/9] Explicit locations v2 - Introduction References: <536BC52D.80800@redhat.com> <20140515175649.GD4016@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20140515175649.GD4016@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-05/txt/msg00259.txt.bz2 On 05/15/2014 10:56 AM, Joel Brobecker wrote: > I did a quick testing session of those patches. First of all, it passes > our internal testsuite on x86_64-linux :). Great news, thank you! > The only part that I found to be odd was that I tried to be a little > more selective in which operator I wanted to break on, by specifying > the line number: > > (gdb) b -f ops."-" -l 15 > Breakpoint 4 at 0x401da4: -f ops."-" -l 15. (2 locations) > > I still got 2 locations, one of them not being at line 15: > > (gdb) info break > 4 breakpoint [...] > 4.1 [...] 0x0000000000401da4 in ops."-" at ops.adb:15 > 4.2 [...] 0x0000000000401ff3 in ops."-" at ops.adb:109 > > But maybe this part wasn't part of this patch's objectives yet... Right. Linespecs don't support this yet, either. This patch was simply to be at parity with linespec. When linespecs gain the ability, explicit should, too. Keith