From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 67124 invoked by alias); 2 Jun 2017 13:01:35 -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 67100 invoked by uid 89); 2 Jun 2017 13:01:34 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=discusses X-HELO: eggs.gnu.org Received: from eggs.gnu.org (HELO eggs.gnu.org) (208.118.235.92) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 02 Jun 2017 13:01:33 +0000 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dGmCp-00018r-4A for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Fri, 02 Jun 2017 09:01:36 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:55254) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dGmCp-00018k-0G; Fri, 02 Jun 2017 09:01:31 -0400 Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:3364 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1dGmCo-00033S-41; Fri, 02 Jun 2017 09:01:30 -0400 Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 13:01:00 -0000 Message-Id: <83a85qczmo.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Pedro Alves CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <1496406158-12663-41-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> (message from Pedro Alves on Fri, 2 Jun 2017 13:22:38 +0100) Subject: Re: [PATCH 40/40] Document breakpoints / linespec & co improvements (manual + NEWS) Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <1496406158-12663-1-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <1496406158-12663-41-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-06/txt/msg00048.txt.bz2 > From: Pedro Alves > Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 13:22:38 +0100 > > +For example, assuming a program with symbols named @code{A::B::func} > +and @code{B::func}, both commands @code{break -function func} and > +@code{break -function B::func} set a breakpoint on both symbols. The 2 commands are long and include whitespace, so I'd suggest enclosing each one in @w{..}, to avoid a line break in the middle of a command. Also, I think @kbd is more appropriate here than @code, since you mean commands the user will type, not just command names. I'm surprised you didn't change anything where the manual discusses quoting of names and symbols. For example, the node "Completion" explicitly describes a use case with overloaded functions in C++; the node "Symbols" describes a case with "::" that requires quoting. There's another example in "Machine Code", and also in "Ambiguous Expression", and in "Variables". Maybe you already reviewed all of those and concluded no changes were necessary, but I just thought I'd mention them. > + ** GDB now has a much improved linespec and explicit locations TAB > + completion support, that better understands what you're > + completing and offers better suggestions. Is this a general improvement, or is it limited to C++ symbols? If the latter, suggest to mention that. > + ** GDB can now complete function parameters in linespecs and > + explicit locations, even without quoting. When setting > + breakpoints, quoting around functions names to help with > + TAB-completion is generally no longer necessary. Likewise. > + ** GDB can now set breakpoints functions marked with [abi:cxx11] > + tags. "on functions", I think. And btw, what are those tags? I don't think I see them documented in the manual; did I miss something? Thanks.