From: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
To: Doug Evans <dje@google.com>
Cc: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: RFA: implement ambiguous linespec proposal
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 16:39:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m3y5vghvi5.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CADPb22SY1XeD8g385KubpaWxCMHLzgL5--qKW6CYHUxi45YSfA@mail.gmail.com> (Doug Evans's message of "Wed, 16 Nov 2011 08:31:46 -0800")
>>>>> "Doug" == Doug Evans <dje@google.com> writes:
Doug> It's not clear that the result of this is that we can programmatically
Doug> determine if a file name is present without having to go see if it's
Doug> present in the debug info.
Doug> Did you have something in mind?
Yeah, I don't think that is possible. I think all you can do without
digging around is perhaps split the linespec into tokens. Otherwise you
have to deal with cases like "FUNCTION:LABEL" differently; and proposed
syntax like an optional "OBJFILE:" prefix no longer makes sense.
If you are looking for some kind of precision in specifying linespecs, I
think implementing an argument form would be more fruitful:
break -objfile O -file F.c -function F
Then one can write exactly what one means in the situations that require
it.
Tom
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-11-16 16:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-10-28 17:34 Tom Tromey
2011-10-28 20:52 ` Matt Rice
2011-11-01 20:38 ` Tom Tromey
2011-10-28 22:41 ` Jan Kratochvil
2011-11-01 20:58 ` Tom Tromey
2011-11-03 20:49 ` Tom Tromey
2011-11-04 7:46 ` Jan Kratochvil
2011-11-08 16:36 ` Tom Tromey
2011-11-09 16:05 ` Joel Brobecker
2011-11-09 17:12 ` Tom Tromey
2011-11-09 17:56 ` Joel Brobecker
2011-11-09 18:19 ` Tom Tromey
2011-11-09 19:00 ` Joel Brobecker
2011-11-14 21:04 ` Tom Tromey
2011-11-14 21:32 ` Jerome Guitton
2011-11-09 18:37 ` Tom Tromey
2011-11-14 21:11 ` Tom Tromey
2011-11-15 16:30 ` Tom Tromey
2011-11-15 16:59 ` Pierre Muller
2011-11-16 0:09 ` Jan Kratochvil
2011-11-16 1:58 ` Joel Brobecker
2011-11-16 14:46 ` Tom Tromey
2011-11-18 14:10 ` Tom Tromey
2011-11-16 21:23 ` Stan Shebs
2011-11-16 2:28 ` Yao Qi
2011-11-16 3:20 ` Doug Evans
2011-11-16 14:46 ` Tom Tromey
2011-11-16 16:06 ` Tom Tromey
2011-11-16 4:57 ` Doug Evans
2011-11-16 5:22 ` Doug Evans
2011-11-16 14:54 ` Tom Tromey
2011-11-16 16:32 ` Doug Evans
2011-11-16 16:39 ` Tom Tromey [this message]
2011-11-16 14:49 ` Tom Tromey
2011-11-16 8:15 ` Yao Qi
2011-11-16 16:17 ` Tom Tromey
2011-11-16 15:43 ` Yao Qi
2011-11-16 16:11 ` Tom Tromey
2011-11-16 16:44 ` Tom Tromey
2011-11-17 3:49 ` Yao Qi
2011-11-21 21:50 ` Tom Tromey
2011-11-23 21:33 ` Tom Tromey
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=m3y5vghvi5.fsf@fleche.redhat.com \
--to=tromey@redhat.com \
--cc=dje@google.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=jan.kratochvil@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox