From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32492 invoked by alias); 16 Nov 2011 05:22:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 32483 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Nov 2011 05:22:45 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-vx0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-vx0-f169.google.com) (209.85.220.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 05:22:31 +0000 Received: by vcbfo11 with SMTP id fo11so101268vcb.0 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 21:22:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.224.105.193 with SMTP id u1mr499046qao.3.1321420950332; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 21:22:30 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.105.193 with SMTP id u1mr499038qao.3.1321420950210; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 21:22:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.224.6.76 with HTTP; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 21:22:30 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20111028221459.GA28467@host1.jankratochvil.net> <20111104074543.GA13839@host1.jankratochvil.net> Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 05:22:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: RFA: implement ambiguous linespec proposal From: Doug Evans To: Tom Tromey Cc: Jan Kratochvil , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-System-Of-Record: true X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2011-11/txt/msg00417.txt.bz2 On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Doug Evans wrote: > On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>>> "Tom" =3D=3D Tom Tromey writes: >> >> Tom> Here is a refresh of this patch. =A0This fixes the regressions note= d by >> Tom> Jan, but also changes ovsrch.exp not to assume that namespace looku= ps >> Tom> are done. >> >> Here is the final revision. Another question while we're cleaning up linespecs, if I may. The docs have this: @item '@var{filename}'::@var{funcaddr} Like @var{funcaddr} above, but also specifies the name of the source file explicitly. This is useful if the name of the function does not specify the function unambiguously, e.g., if there are several functions with identical names in different source files. Is the double colon, ::, a typo? I've only ever seen filename delimited with a single colon. I'm hoping we can trivially decide that a file name is present by seeing a single colon. [First trying "foo" in "foo::bar" as file, only afterwards to try it as a class or a namespace if that fails is clumsy, and a perf issue.]