From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10711 invoked by alias); 30 Aug 2011 15:00:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 10702 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Aug 2011 15:00:55 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.2 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; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 15:00:37 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p7UF0acm031441 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:00:36 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p7UF0aGl010422; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:00:36 -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 p7UF0YKa028532; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:00:35 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Keith Seitz Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] 12843 References: <4E56C5A0.60802@redhat.com> <4E57E9EC.8060706@redhat.com> <201108290920.40589.andre.poenitz@nokia.com> <4E5C00D9.9060401@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 15:00:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4E5C00D9.9060401@redhat.com> (Keith Seitz's message of "Mon, 29 Aug 2011 14:12:57 -0700") 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/msg00605.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Keith" == Keith Seitz writes: Tom> My first reaction is against this, but I don't have a particularly good Tom> explanation for that. I will think about it. Keith> Is there actually any reason to require a flag? Couldn't we simply Keith> allow either a flag-based location _or_ a linespec, but not both, I think there are 2 ideas here. For MI we can just add options, as you say. This causes no problems for compatibility; it may be a bit of a pain to implement, but nothing crazily difficult, just some more virtual methods in breakpoint. I thought Andre's proposal about "set breakpoint syntax 2011" was specifically for the CLI, where it would switch from linespec to something new. That's what I was responding to. Keith> I wouldn't be surprised if IDEs adopted the flag-based version Keith> very quickly. Yeah. I filed a bug for this: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13139 Tom