From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 99476 invoked by alias); 28 Nov 2017 00:02:00 -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 99157 invoked by uid 89); 28 Nov 2017 00:01:55 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-25.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,GIT_PATCH_0,GIT_PATCH_1,GIT_PATCH_2,GIT_PATCH_3,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,KB_WAM_FROM_NAME_SINGLEWORD,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=hesitate, respond X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 00:01:54 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DA86356D1 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 00:01:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from theo.uglyboxes.com (ovpn04.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.4]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C84CF609A5; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 00:01:52 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH 32/40] Make "break foo" find "A::foo", A::B::foo", etc. [C++ and wild matching] To: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <1496406158-12663-1-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <1496406158-12663-33-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <024edecc-7bfa-08a4-de46-3536297f0654@redhat.com> <943402c5-0bbb-8ff7-66e3-5522256fbc1e@redhat.com> From: Keith Seitz Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 00:02:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <943402c5-0bbb-8ff7-66e3-5522256fbc1e@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-11/txt/msg00708.txt.bz2 On 11/22/2017 08:48 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: > On 08/09/2017 12:48 AM, Keith Seitz wrote: >> On 06/02/2017 05:22 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: >> >> I think this would read better if it read: "This behavior may be overridden >> by using the \"-qualified\" flag and specifying a fully qualified name." >> [I am not a fan of using informal writing in documentation.] > > How about the even simpler: > > @@ -15295,7 +15295,10 @@ Explicit locations are similar to linespecs but use an option/argument\n\ > syntax to specify location parameters.\n\ > Example: To specify the start of the label named \"the_top\" in the\n\ > function \"fact\" in the file \"factorial.c\", use \"-source factorial.c\n\ > --function fact -label the_top\".\n" > +-function fact -label the_top\".\n\ > +For C++, \"-function\" matches functions and methods by name, ignoring\n\ > +missing leading specifiers (namespaces and classes).\n\ > +\"-qualified\" matches functions and methods by fully qualified name.\n" > Simple is good! >>> /* This help string is used for the break, hbreak, tbreak and thbreak >>> commands. It is defined as a macro to prevent duplication. >>> diff --git a/gdb/completer.c b/gdb/completer.c >>> index eabbce7..99e40a3 100644 >>> --- a/gdb/completer.c >>> +++ b/gdb/completer.c >>> @@ -609,6 +612,7 @@ static const char *const explicit_options[] = >>> { >>> "-source", >>> "-function", >>> + "-qualified", >>> "-line", >>> "-label", >>> NULL >> >> The "-qualified" option can be used with linespecs, too, right? > > Not really, no. > If I've read my catch-up mail correctly, there's been a change of plan here. So I'll just respond to the relevant parts not addressed in follow-ups. If I've missed something, don't hesitate to point them out to me. [You know where to find me.] > Do you see "-qualified" being an alternative to "-function" > instead of a flag as a blocker? > > Please let me know. I don't think this is relevant anymore, but just in case: Do *not* delay the next release for this. 8.1 absolutely *needs* this patch set. > Here's the current/updated patch. That all looks okay to me. [TBH, I've just diffed this with the previous.] I will look to the follow-on immediately. Keith