From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E27093857004 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 18:35:12 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org E27093857004 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark@simark.ca Received: from [10.0.0.11] (173-246-6-90.qc.cable.ebox.net [173.246.6.90]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 02D6A1E055; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 14:35:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add MI "-break-insert --qualified" To: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20200901180703.20045-1-pedro@palves.net> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: <619c2383-5a76-3be2-cf80-dd532195fa30@simark.ca> Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 14:35:11 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200901180703.20045-1-pedro@palves.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: fr Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2020 18:35:13 -0000 On 2020-09-01 2:07 p.m., Pedro Alves wrote: > Currently -break-insert always creates a wildmatching breakpoint, and > there's no way to ask for a fullname match. To address that, this > patch adds the equivalent of "break -qualified" to MI: > > "-break-insert --qualified". > > For the testcase, curiously, it doesn't look like we have _any_ > testcase that tests a breakpoint with multiple locations, and, the > existing mi_create_breakpoint / mi_make_breakpoint procedures are only > good for breakpoints with a single location. This patch thus adds a > few new companion routines to mi-support.exp for breakpoints with > multiple locations: mi_create_breakpoint_multi, > mi_make_breakpoint_loc, mi_make_breakpoint_multi. The code looks good to me. Thanks, Simon