From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jim Blandy To: Daniel Berlin Cc: Elena Zannoni , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] linespec.c change to stop "malformed template specification" error Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 15:22:00 -0000 Message-id: References: <87ofsldrgr.fsf@dynamic-addr-83-177.resnet.rochester.edu> <15134.47162.825017.119342@kwikemart.cygnus.com> <15135.37463.301545.370875@kwikemart.cygnus.com> <87r8wwb74f.fsf@cgsoftware.com> <87bso0nno7.fsf@cgsoftware.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-06/msg00160.html Daniel Berlin writes: > Jim Blandy writes: > > Daniel Berlin writes: > >> > So finding breakpoint names requires parsing (almost) arbitrary > >> > expressions. > >> Only if you allow arbitrary names. > >> We don't. > >> So this leaves allowing a superset. > > > > Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. > > We don't allow expressions inside the line specifications right now. > > Try "break (5 < 10) ? 10 : 20". > > So the trouble we run into right now is because due to us wanting to > do good error messages, without any kind of a real parser, we > sometimes incorrectly split out what the function name is from the > rest of the line specification. Either you're misunderstanding the case I'm trying to address, or I'm misunderstanding what find_toplevel_char is searching for. This is the kind of confusion that generates dozens of mail messages, but would take two seconds to straighten out in person. Since the patch is approved either way (with appropriate changes to the comment above find_toplevel_char), and I think we all basically get what's going on, I'm not going to pursue this further.