From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id LNuCJWb5lWLEcwkAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 31 May 2022 07:17:58 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 883621E221; Tue, 31 May 2022 07:17:58 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A,RDNS_DYNAMIC autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E4AD1E143 for ; Tue, 31 May 2022 07:17:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A6443834E40 for ; Tue, 31 May 2022 11:17:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail-wm1-f47.google.com (mail-wm1-f47.google.com [209.85.128.47]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A39223857BBC for ; Tue, 31 May 2022 11:17:46 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org A39223857BBC Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=palves.net Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-wm1-f47.google.com with SMTP id p19so7833123wmg.2 for ; Tue, 31 May 2022 04:17:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:cc:references:from:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=jBUdmoYTTVz/ZAy36XfEf7lgsmrsI2PBHcJ5kBYpZ5c=; b=wabz2KDPtltDRmHa/9m7Fc9iSVPTfz+MPm4BpR8M5gmmH5t80+5QkGJnvgF5nM8KBy 8scTgn/ETwppdL4tZ8WmpB4qwCwStR1UMBW5oytCvdwa3Rc2Hdzx3bw75kO8O9GDh5jc iKfoFtY6YZjVyZxQSOQfFxF6srkVI22shHdUumkebWsRGZpTzeaU2zXvjH2YJH18AypQ 9CBsfbwLVSlTkyb6Zt2ZGjvfFo4sB4p3J/6RfMrcS0qs+72q70yMgkht2o5TzjlLlEkE K22nLppZe9bpTNQ6xOIGotIJCJku0m/BJXgWWZKH8FcLNF1EqGw0aNgAwLSnqimgOCiG lB0g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530aqbBd2OhThSS+780sAE0VYgKezndFIm0tj7iXf3cPWSwcqUiV MLKmjUsvhCkAIPeqlpEcZQr5SNb3ssQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx/1EXw7U5nBgwDcuCZpMa4GUc+QaoEwj/AX6AvgM/0vcH61S2SmW2x1FKDP1UyfysZEFtohQ== X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c341:0:b0:37b:c619:c9f4 with SMTP id l1-20020a7bc341000000b0037bc619c9f4mr23001719wmj.38.1653995865417; Tue, 31 May 2022 04:17:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPV6:2001:8a0:f924:2600:209d:85e2:409e:8726? ([2001:8a0:f924:2600:209d:85e2:409e:8726]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p15-20020a05600c358f00b003973ea7e725sm2648052wmq.0.2022.05.31.04.17.43 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 31 May 2022 04:17:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 31 May 2022 12:17:43 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.1 Subject: Re: [pushed v5] gdb/manual: Introduce location specs Content-Language: en-US To: Eli Zaretskii References: <20220526194250.2310460-1-pedro@palves.net> <838rqmm7gb.fsf@gnu.org> <6914f754-4e33-5aa1-4ea6-dca9504e8bfe@palves.net> <837d63j8tx.fsf@gnu.org> From: Pedro Alves In-Reply-To: <837d63j8tx.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On 2022-05-30 17:15, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >>>> +register other than the program counter. If @var{locspec} resolves to >>>> +an address in a different function from the one currently executing, the >>>> +results may be bizarre if the two functions expect different patterns >>>> +of arguments or of local variables. For this reason, the @code{jump} >>>> +command requests confirmation if the specified line is not in the >>>> +function currently executing. ^^^^ >>> "line" or "code location"? >> I think it should say "jump address" here instead of "specified line", as this is >> not about a line the user input in the spec, but rather what address the locspec >> resolved to. > So perhaps it's better to say "if @var{locapsec} resolves to an > address that is not in the currently executing function". > Dunno, that just repeats the exact same text in previous sentence. I think the current text says the same, and reads better for avoiding the duplication.