Re: RTe: Location Specs (Was: [pushed v5] gdb/manual: Introduce location specs)

[Eli Zaretskii via Gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>]

> Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2022 13:40:10 +0100
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> From: Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net>
> 
> The original text before my changes used "specifies":
> 
>  Several @value{GDBN} commands accept arguments that specify a location
>  of your program's code.  Since @value{GDBN} is a source-level
>  debugger, a location usually specifies some line in the source code.
>  Locations may be specified using three different formats:
>  linespec locations, explicit locations, or address locations.
> 
> and I wanted to extend it to give the function name, address, label, etc. examples,
> other attributes one can specify.
> 
> I don't recall exactly how I got to "indicate".  To me, in something
> like "-line LINENUM", LINENUM is the line indicated in the spec.  In
> "-function FUNC", FUNC is the function name indicated in the spec.
> I think I was just trying to avoid the repetition in "a specification specifies",
> which sounds like it was a mistake, as it introduced ambiguity.  Better to
> go back to "specifies".

OK, how about this instead?

  Several @value{GDBN} commands accept arguments that specify a location
  or locations of your program's code.  Many times locations are
  specified using a source line number, but they can also be specified
  by a function name, an address, a label, etc.  The different
  forms of specifying a location that @value{GDBN} recognizes are
  collectively known as forms of @dfn{location specification}, or
  @dfn{location spec}.  This section documents the forms of specifying
  locations that @value{GDBN} recognizes.

> >>>  For a C@t{++} constructor, the @value{NGCC} compiler generates several
> >>> -instances of the function body, used in different cases.
> >>> +instances of the function body, used in different cases, but their
> >>> +source-level names are identical, unless you qualify them.
> >>
> >> What do you mean by "qualify" here?
> > 
> > The "fully-qualified and prototyped function" part.
> 
> That's unrelated to what is being alluded to here.

OK, I will drop the "unless you qualify them" part.

Thanks.