From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22318 invoked by alias); 30 Mar 2012 15:34:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 22228 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Mar 2012 15:34:18 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 15:33:53 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2UFXqfY004076 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 11:33:52 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2UFXpJ2029599 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 30 Mar 2012 11:33:51 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Keith Seitz Cc: "gdb-patches\@sourceware.org ml" Subject: Re: [RFA 1/2] Linespec rewrite (update 2) References: <4F70F8F7.503@redhat.com> <87zkb0wj1x.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <4F74B583.6090008@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 15:34:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4F74B583.6090008@redhat.com> (Keith Seitz's message of "Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:18:27 -0700") Message-ID: <87obrertls.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.94 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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 X-SW-Source: 2012-03/txt/msg01045.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Keith" == Keith Seitz writes: Keith> I don't know. The whole comma thing is undocumented. The test suite Keith> does contain list ranges. That's how I originally discovered Keith> this. I've removed the list mode restriction, though, and it doesn't Keith> affect test results at all. You can write a test case using python that calls gdb.decode_line and examines the remainder of the line. Comma-termination isn't documented but I think it has to be preserved anyway. Keith> Yes, we can end up with a canonical form like "function:+5" or Keith> "file:+5". The former is permitted (per recent maintainer request) Keith> because we currently ignore the offset. [It is unprocessed in Keith> convert_linespec_to_sals.] I'm not a fan of this, What is the rationale for having a linespec where parts are ignored? I couldn't think of a use for it. And, if current cvs rejects it, then it seems like it is interfering with a useful future feature as well. Tom> Why are minsyms sorted by pspace in one branch but not another? Keith> No real good reason, other than that is the way it is done today. I Keith> tried to keep the codepaths as similar as possible. I've merged the Keith> two branches together. No need for minsyms to be singled out like Keith> this. Thanks. Keeping things the same is sufficient rationale, but now that you've merged it, that is fine too. Tom