From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5580 invoked by alias); 5 Aug 2011 14:40:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 5570 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Aug 2011 14:40:34 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Aug 2011 14:40:11 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p75Ee2xW029267 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 5 Aug 2011 10:40:02 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p75Ee20i015553; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 10:40:02 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p75Ee0hU024859; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 10:40:01 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Sergio Durigan Junior Cc: Pedro Alves , Jan Kratochvil , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] Introduce `pre_expanded sals' References: <201104121218.08910.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20110412115308.GA384@host1.jankratochvil.net> <201104121430.24596.pedro@codesourcery.com> Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 14:40:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Sergio Durigan Junior's message of "Fri, 05 Aug 2011 00:41:04 -0300") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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: 2011-08/txt/msg00110.txt.bz2 Sergio> All right, I see what you mean. Personally, I think that if this Sergio> behavior happens, then it means we should probably fix linespec in order Sergio> to evaluate the `probe:' part earlier. I hadn't thought of that. It seems insufficient to me, though. Suppose that "break probe:something" matches both a probe named "something" and a function in the executable "probe". In this case, the breakpoint will have to match both locations (due to the spec I'm implementing), but in a way the locations would have very different meanings. Sergio> As I said in the beginning, I'm OK with that change. But obviously I'm Sergio> not a maintainer, and I'm also an interested part in this being accepted Sergio> :-). I'm going to work on it then. thanks, Tom