From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id 8e5tLKWzmGLz5QkAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 02 Jun 2022 08:57:09 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id A62DF1E221; Thu, 2 Jun 2022 08:57:09 -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=J6ljL8qh; 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=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RDNS_DYNAMIC,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.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 D34251E143 for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2022 08:57:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E31B1396D82A for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2022 12:57:07 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E31B1396D82A DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1654174627; bh=LUwgg9bxg/aeFluk6W1YWlZGOnhm9PUndc6MaPs6UnA=; 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=J6ljL8qhsJoK8pZCdFY6J4onyiqmJIZw70juad02+7Co7afpHtTwFAUpwqP1Mqbjg CFYP4BX6aYtRpK0oUi+dh7oCDOxHQsbZJzjYVEx5Ja1wCAKIMT1FWDb1dCnrYIm3Qx UwEG/ZYLYWwSR+1RART8BVj+QYC2FlME3zLobJGw= Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AFA3396D82A for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2022 12:56:48 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 8AFA3396D82A Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:56778) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nwkNb-0006k1-3g; Thu, 02 Jun 2022 08:56:47 -0400 Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=3276 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 1nwkNa-0008He-Is; Thu, 02 Jun 2022 08:56:46 -0400 Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2022 15:56:55 +0300 Message-Id: <83wndzdy08.fsf@gnu.org> To: Pedro Alves In-Reply-To: <5eb11c4f-a35a-79fa-cc67-0428dc88134a@palves.net> (message from Pedro Alves on Thu, 2 Jun 2022 13:40:10 +0100) Subject: Re: RTe: Location Specs (Was: [pushed v5] gdb/manual: Introduce location specs) References: <20220526194250.2310460-1-pedro@palves.net> <838rqmm7gb.fsf@gnu.org> <6914f754-4e33-5aa1-4ea6-dca9504e8bfe@palves.net> <83wne0fgmd.fsf@gnu.org> <834k13ffpf.fsf@gnu.org> <5eb11c4f-a35a-79fa-cc67-0428dc88134a@palves.net> 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, 2 Jun 2022 13:40:10 +0100 > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > From: Pedro Alves > > 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.