From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27078 invoked by alias); 10 May 2014 00:25:26 -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 27066 invoked by uid 89); 10 May 2014 00:25:25 -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,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-la0-f44.google.com Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com (HELO mail-la0-f44.google.com) (209.85.215.44) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Sat, 10 May 2014 00:25:24 +0000 Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id hr17so382569lab.31 for ; Fri, 09 May 2014 17:25:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.14.5 with SMTP id l5mr13161410lbc.12.1399681521215; Fri, 09 May 2014 17:25:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.184.105 with HTTP; Fri, 9 May 2014 17:25:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <536D0446.9060500@redhat.com> References: <536BC707.4030300@redhat.com> <536D0446.9060500@redhat.com> Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 00:25:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFA 7/9] Explicit locations v2 - CLI for explicit locations From: Matt Rice To: Keith Seitz Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org ml" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-05/txt/msg00122.txt.bz2 On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Keith Seitz wrote: > On 05/08/2014 05:48 PM, Matt Rice wrote: > > The parser seems to already permit this syntax, but again, I'm sure there > are latent bugs in there somewhere: > > (gdb) b -func foo('a) > Function "foo('a)" not defined. > Make breakpoint pending on future shared library load? (y or [n]) n > > So, in the end, it certainly seems that we could whack this quoting stuff > altogether if it was so desired. Other than the parallelism `argument' that > I think I used to justify this to myself when I originally wrote it, there > isn't really a compelling reason to keep it. At least, not that I know > of/remember right now. Thanks Keith, I had somehow missed that it just skips the initial leading quotes, so seems the more nefarious b -func foo('a * 'b) should work as well that works for me.