Re: RFA: implement ambiguous linespec proposal

[Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>]

>>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> writes:

Jan> -PASS: gdb.base/step-line.exp: break f1
Jan> +FAIL: gdb.base/step-line.exp: break f1

This fails because there is a (data) symbol named 'f1' in libm.
I think 'break' and friends will have to pass in a flag meaning "only
look for text symbols".

Jan> -PASS: gdb.cp/ovsrch.exp: break outer::foo if (a == 3)
Jan> +FAIL: gdb.cp/ovsrch.exp: break outer::foo if (a == 3)
Jan> -PASS: gdb.cp/ovsrch.exp: break inner::foo if (a == 3)
Jan> +FAIL: gdb.cp/ovsrch.exp: break inner::foo if (a == 3)

I don't like how this test assumes that gdb will do a namespace search
for a symbol when decoding linespecs.  That just seems wrong to me.
But, we've shipped it for a while, so I think we'll have to cope.

I think I will need a new language method to handle this properly.

The test itself is bogus since it makes an assumption about which
overload 'inner::foo' will match.  I think it should match all of them,
and in one of them there is no symbol named 'a'.

Jan> Just on Fedora 16 x86_64 with -m32:
Jan> -PASS: gdb.threads/thread_check.exp: breakpoint at tf
Jan> +FAIL: gdb.threads/thread_check.exp: breakpoint at tf

Similar to step-line, 'tf' is a .bss symbol in libc.

Tom