From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id lSn4DUvbj2KfkAgAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 26 May 2022 15:55:55 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 2B7CA1E221; Thu, 26 May 2022 15:55:55 -0400 (EDT) Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=sourceware.org header.i=@sourceware.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=F8ZFcbB5; dkim-atps=neutral X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 897F81E00D for ; Thu, 26 May 2022 15:55:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C344383569A for ; Thu, 26 May 2022 19:55:54 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 0C344383569A DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1653594954; bh=er0tdrb9BVwN08RjC7j5dYY5tXAKHJS+KxSeOrDFAfQ=; h=Date:To:In-Reply-To:Subject:References:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=F8ZFcbB5GdBDMA0wS8PMo2DJO1PwFEdIaDqz60nRbBz6tZGAHQ1dSKpH3sxSESEOV ovoY4/sViGwqedETAHFEw4JQc3hHqi4dJvaDsbqEqNPH8jnZETBj8XLbrVRCewDu4v EgNgpBn1dwbEib6aIW8POiDzxqaIhJ980Sgva0bE= Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA5823836E40 for ; Thu, 26 May 2022 19:55:34 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org BA5823836E40 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:41926) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nuJa1-0000ms-Bq; Thu, 26 May 2022 15:55:34 -0400 Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=2786 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nuJa0-0003rf-Dk; Thu, 26 May 2022 15:55:33 -0400 Date: Thu, 26 May 2022 22:55:26 +0300 Message-Id: <83k0a8nk5t.fsf@gnu.org> To: Pedro Alves In-Reply-To: <9f7b3fba-f260-7901-ece0-51f377839733@palves.net> (message from Pedro Alves on Thu, 26 May 2022 20:29:50 +0100) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] Always show locations for breakpoints & show canonical location spec References: <20220519215552.3254012-1-pedro@palves.net> <20220519215552.3254012-2-pedro@palves.net> <834k1kd7ne.fsf@gnu.org> <625057b2-1691-a472-fa93-0dabacbddd39@palves.net> <83ilpv5bd3.fsf@gnu.org> <4c7a9504-83e0-6c02-fda6-0254ab4eede4@palves.net> <8335gwpiih.fsf@gnu.org> <83v8tsnxp6.fsf@gnu.org> <9f7b3fba-f260-7901-ece0-51f377839733@palves.net> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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: , From: Eli Zaretskii via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" > Date: Thu, 26 May 2022 20:29:50 +0100 > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > From: Pedro Alves > > I documented all this in the Location Specifications section. I'll send v4 in a bit. > > I did not go for "source locations", however. I swear I am not trying to be > difficult... The issue is that as I tried to describe things, "source location" read > awkwardly, and kind of a lie-ish. Because, you can have usable resolved locations without > sources, even if they are incomplete. It depends on command if they are usable. Instead, I > noticed something. > > Here: > > * List:: Printing source lines > -* Specify Location:: How to specify code locations > +* Location Specifications:: How to specify code locations > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > And note what the intro paragraph of that node currently says: > > "Several GDB commands accept arguments that specify a location or locations of your program’s code." > > Clearly the arguments specify something, and that something is ... "locations of your program’s code." > > So I went with "code locations" instead. I could agree with this, but note that you are contradicting yourself: "code" can and is sometimes interpreted as "machine code", and thus "code location" can be interpreted as "address", something you didn't want. By contrast, "source location" is unequivocally a source-level concept, and reflects the fact that it refers to a certain line of source code in a certain file. Moreover, it follows the example of that C++ page you yourself used as an argument. Why now you deviate from all that is a mystery for me. But if you don't care about all these inconsistencies, "code location" is fine with me, as it qualifies the overly-general "location" enough to solve the potential ambiguity, which was what bothered me. > Anyhow, you'll see in v4 in a bit. > > I hope you will be happy with this one. Thanks.