From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9155 invoked by alias); 30 Aug 2011 17:24:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 9139 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Aug 2011 17:24:31 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RDNS_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from Unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 17:24:11 +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 p7UHO4YG029181 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:24:04 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p7UHO4d7006931; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:24:04 -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 p7UHO3El018565; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:24:03 -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 17:24:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Tom Tromey's message of "Tue, 30 Aug 2011 09:00:34 -0600") 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/msg00616.txt.bz2 Tom> I thought Andre's proposal about "set breakpoint syntax 2011" was Tom> specifically for the CLI, where it would switch from linespec to Tom> something new. That's what I was responding to. It occurred to me today that we could probably handle this via a new option to "break" et al. For the SystemTap probes rebase, after ambiguous linespecs are done, I'm planning to add a "-p" option to mean "parse as a SystemTap probe": break -p provider:name I think this doesn't clash with any historical use. So, we could look for a flag first thing and switch to "split syntax": break -s sourcefile -f function -l line I don't immediately see any problems with this. Tom