From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10330 invoked by alias); 14 Jan 2008 22:25:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 10322 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Jan 2008 22:25:25 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:24:58 +0000 Received: (qmail 778 invoked from network); 14 Jan 2008 22:24:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (jimb@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 14 Jan 2008 22:24:56 -0000 To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Mark Kettenis , drow@false.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA?] Should break FILE:LINENO skip prologue? References: <20080111053547.GB12954@adacore.com> <200801111126.m0BBQQDB006618@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20080111182136.GD12954@adacore.com> <200801112113.m0BLDnAF024595@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <200801121531.m0CFVW8I023504@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <200801121618.m0CGI27U012957@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20080112175817.GA21954@caradoc.them.org> <200801130921.m0D9LDtI008394@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Jim Blandy Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:25:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sun, 13 Jan 2008 05:19:22 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2008-01/txt/msg00332.txt.bz2 Eli Zaretskii writes: >> Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 10:21:13 +0100 (CET) >> From: Mark Kettenis >> CC: drow@false.org, mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, gdb-patches@sourceware.org >> >> > Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 06:21:36 +0200 >> > From: Eli Zaretskii >> > >> > > In Ada, as Joel said, this is not true. *FUNCTION won't work >> > >> > That's too bad: this is an important feature, so if we cannot make it >> > work in all languages, we should at least document that. >> >> This is exactly the reason why documenting *FUNCTION on its own is the >> wrong thing to do. What we implement in GDB is *EXPRESSION, where >> EXPRESSION is an expression in the current language yielding an >> address. > > You seem to be saying that documenting things that might be obvious is > a bad thing. If so, then I disagree: if it wasn't obvious for me, > there will be others. There are three possible approaches: a) In Eli's original message, the list include "*EXPRESSION" and "*FUNCTION" as separate cases. This suggested to me that Eli thought we should document them as separate cases. b) We could document the "*EXPRESSION" case, and then point out the commonly used "*FUNCTION" usage of that case. c) We could document "*EXPRESSION", and not mention "*FUNCTION" at all. I dislike a), because it suggests that "*FUNCTION" is recognized specially --- it is not. In many languages this doesn't matter, but as Joel points out, a) would be actively misleading for Ada users, as "*FUNCTION" does not refer to the first instruction of FUNCTION in Ada. I dislike c), for the reasons Eli mentioned, and because I appreciate having handy use cases pointed out. So b) is my first choice.