RFA: documentation change for ambiguous linespec patch

RFA: documentation change for ambiguous linespec patch

[Tom Tromey]

This needs a doc review.

To my surprise, the ambiguous linespec change mostly makes gdb accord
better with the existing documentation.  So, I did not need many changes
to the documentation.

Here is what I propose.

Tom

2011-11-14  Tom Tromey  <tromey@redhat.com>

	* NEWS: Document ambiguous linespec change.

2011-11-14  Tom Tromey  <tromey@redhat.com>

	* gdb.texinfo (Set Breaks): Update for new behavior.

From 7eb486556166c77a7b0dbc5741036de71cc75705 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 13:18:19 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 4/4] doc changes

---
 gdb/ChangeLog       |    4 ++++
 gdb/NEWS            |    6 ++++++
 gdb/doc/ChangeLog   |    4 ++++
 gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo |    9 ++++-----
 4 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gdb/NEWS b/gdb/NEWS
index 1713049..f9cd558 100644
--- a/gdb/NEWS
+++ b/gdb/NEWS
@@ -3,6 +3,12 @@
 
 *** Changes since GDB 7.3.1
 
+* GDB now handles ambiguous linespecs more consistently; the existing
+  FILE:LINE support has been expanded to other types of linespecs.  A
+  breakpoint will now have locations at all the matching points in all
+  inferiors, and locations will be added or subtracted according to
+  inferior changes.
+
 * GDB now allows you to skip uninteresting functions and files when
   stepping with the "skip function" and "skip file" commands.
 
diff --git a/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo b/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo
index 520360f..d6fc928 100644
--- a/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo
+++ b/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo
@@ -3515,6 +3515,9 @@ in your program.  Examples of this situation are:
 
 @itemize @bullet
 @item
+Multiple functions in the program may have the same name.
+
+@item
 For a C@t{++} constructor, the @value{NGCC} compiler generates several
 instances of the function body, used in different cases.
 
@@ -3528,11 +3531,7 @@ several places where that function is inlined.
 @end itemize
 
 In all those cases, @value{GDBN} will insert a breakpoint at all
-the relevant locations@footnote{
-As of this writing, multiple-location breakpoints work only if there's
-line number information for all the locations.  This means that they
-will generally not work in system libraries, unless you have debug
-info with line numbers for them.}.
+the relevant locations.
 
 A breakpoint with multiple locations is displayed in the breakpoint
 table using several rows---one header row, followed by one row for
-- 
1.7.6.4

Re: RFA: documentation change for ambiguous linespec patch

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
> Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 14:16:22 -0700
> 
> To my surprise, the ambiguous linespec change mostly makes gdb accord
> better with the existing documentation.  So, I did not need many changes
> to the documentation.
> 
> Here is what I propose.

Thanks.

> +* GDB now handles ambiguous linespecs more consistently; the existing
> +  FILE:LINE support has been expanded to other types of linespecs.  A
> +  breakpoint will now have locations at all the matching points in all

How about "...will now be set on all matching locations..."?  "Have
locations" sounds a bit confusing; at least I never thought of a
breakpoint as _having_ a location.

> +                   locations will be added or subtracted according to
> +  inferior changes.

Will these additions and removals be announced by GDB?  If so, perhaps
an example or a note to that effect is in order.

Also, is "subtracted" the right word here?  I use it only as an
arithmetic operation, but I'm not a native speaker.

The rest is (trivially) fine with me.  Thanks.

Re: RFA: documentation change for ambiguous linespec patch

[Tom Tromey]

>>>>> "Eli" == Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

Eli> How about "...will now be set on all matching locations..."?  "Have
Eli> locations" sounds a bit confusing; at least I never thought of a
Eli> breakpoint as _having_ a location.

Ok, I did that.

>> +                   locations will be added or subtracted according to
>> +  inferior changes.

Eli> Will these additions and removals be announced by GDB?

Nope.

Eli> Also, is "subtracted" the right word here?  I use it only as an
Eli> arithmetic operation, but I'm not a native speaker.

I changed it to "added".

Tom

Re: RFA: documentation change for ambiguous linespec patch

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 11:04:53 -0700
> 
> >> +                   locations will be added or subtracted according to
> >> +  inferior changes.
> 
> Eli> Also, is "subtracted" the right word here?  I use it only as an
> Eli> arithmetic operation, but I'm not a native speaker.
> 
> I changed it to "added".

You mean "removed", right?  Because "added" was already there.

Thanks.

Re: RFA: documentation change for ambiguous linespec patch

[Tom Tromey]

>>>>> "Eli" == Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
>> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>> Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 11:04:53 -0700
>> 
>> >> +                   locations will be added or subtracted according to
>> >> +  inferior changes.
>> 
Eli> Also, is "subtracted" the right word here?  I use it only as an
Eli> arithmetic operation, but I'm not a native speaker.
>> 
>> I changed it to "added".

Eli> You mean "removed", right?  Because "added" was already there.

Yeah, oops.

Tom