From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-83322-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 9224 invoked by alias); 30 Aug 2011 02:35:04 -0000
Received: (qmail 9083 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Aug 2011 02:35:02 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail-ew0-f41.google.com (HELO mail-ew0-f41.google.com) (209.85.215.41)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 02:34:49 +0000
Received: by ewy9 with SMTP id 9so2991003ewy.0        for <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 19:34:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.14.10.70 with SMTP id 46mr1672878eeu.223.1314671688020; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 19:34:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.14.127.13 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 19:34:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4E5C00D9.9060401@redhat.com>
References: <4E56C5A0.60802@redhat.com>	<4E57E9EC.8060706@redhat.com>	<m3hb54rnyh.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>	<201108290920.40589.andre.poenitz@nokia.com>	<m3r544dmra.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>	<4E5C00D9.9060401@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 02:35:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAN9gPaFCORky68PHk8eOibsAodmgLBbXvb7JtjAy79zMD3qCUA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFA] 12843
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
To: Keith Seitz <keiths@redhat.com>
Cc: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-08/txt/msg00582.txt.bz2

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Keith Seitz <keiths@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 08/29/2011 12:46 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>
>> My first reaction is against this, but I don't have a particularly good
>> explanation for that. =A0I will think about it.
>
> Is there actually any reason to require a flag? Couldn't we simply allow
> either a flag-based location _or_ a linespec, but not both, i.e.,
>
> -insert-break -file foo.c -function my_function
>
> OR
>
> -insert-break foo.c:my_function
>
> but not
>
> -insert-break -file foo.c my_function
>
> This would allow backward compatibility and new/better functionality.
>
> I wouldn't be surprised if IDEs adopted the flag-based version very quick=
ly.

Heck, sometimes I'd use this from the command line if I could.

--=20
Thanks,
Daniel