From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5514 invoked by alias); 26 Feb 2010 23:02:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 5307 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Feb 2010 23:02:57 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,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, 26 Feb 2010 23:02:53 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o1QN2phF023715 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:02:51 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o1QN2puF018379; Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:02:51 -0500 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (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 o1QN2o2D008101; Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:02:50 -0500 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id F2EB4379956; Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:02:49 -0700 (MST) From: Tom Tromey To: Keith Seitz Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] More linespec quoting "fixes" References: <4B85A3BF.8010001@redhat.com> Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 23:02:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4B85A3BF.8010001@redhat.com> (Keith Seitz's message of "Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:10:07 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2010-02/txt/msg00662.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Keith" == Keith Seitz writes: Keith> Daniel recently committed a patch which fixed a couple of Keith> linespec inconsistencies (allow "file:'function'" and Keith> "'file:function'"). Keith> I wonder why not also allow "'file':function" and Keith> "'file':'function'"? Keith> I couldn't find a good answer as to why these two forms would be Keith> disallowed, so I'm submitting the attached patch to enable these Keith> formats. The patch seems reasonable enough to me. But, I don't claim to understand linespec.c, so I'd appreciate it if someone else would take a look. My real question is whether we want to do this. We've talked a little bit about rewriting linespec to be less horrible... will supporting more syntax make this too hard? I'm open to breaking compatibility a bit -- but I think there is a limit to what we can do there, based on what is documented. Tom