From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22526 invoked by alias); 5 Aug 2011 18:06:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 22512 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Aug 2011 18:06:11 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.9 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; Fri, 05 Aug 2011 18:05:52 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p75I5hDv001880 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 5 Aug 2011 14:05:44 -0400 Received: from psique ([10.3.112.5]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p75I5a83005273; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 14:05:39 -0400 From: Sergio Durigan Junior To: Tom Tromey Cc: Pedro Alves , Jan Kratochvil , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] Introduce `pre_expanded sals' References: <201104121218.08910.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20110412115308.GA384@host1.jankratochvil.net> <201104121430.24596.pedro@codesourcery.com> Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 18:06:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Tom Tromey's message of "Fri, 05 Aug 2011 08:40:00 -0600") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (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: 2011-08/txt/msg00118.txt.bz2 Tom Tromey writes: > Sergio> All right, I see what you mean. Personally, I think that if this > Sergio> behavior happens, then it means we should probably fix linespec in order > Sergio> to evaluate the `probe:' part earlier. > > I hadn't thought of that. It seems insufficient to me, though. Suppose > that "break probe:something" matches both a probe named "something" and > a function in the executable "probe". In this case, the breakpoint will > have to match both locations (due to the spec I'm implementing), but in > a way the locations would have very different meanings. Hm, ok. I was thinking superficially about the problem, and assuming that we would only accept the `probe:' for stap probes. Anyway, you're right, it would be much more difficult to handle this case. > Sergio> As I said in the beginning, I'm OK with that change. But obviously I'm > Sergio> not a maintainer, and I'm also an interested part in this being accepted > Sergio> :-). > > I'm going to work on it then. Thanks a lot!