From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30844 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2008 18:57:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 30835 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Jan 2008 18:57:25 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from heller.inter.net.il (HELO heller.inter.net.il) (213.8.233.23) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:57:03 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-84-228-249-38.inter.net.il [84.228.249.38]) by heller.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3a-GA) with ESMTP id ERA92473 (AUTH halo1); Wed, 16 Jan 2008 20:56:48 +0200 (IST) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:57:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Mark Kettenis CC: uweigand@de.ibm.com, brobecker@adacore.com, msnyder@specifix.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <200801161034.m0GAYfpk000326@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> (message from Mark Kettenis on Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:34:41 +0100 (CET)) Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA?] Should break FILE:LINENO skip prologue? Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <200801152140.m0FLeMha003566@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> <200801161034.m0GAYfpk000326@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> 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: 2008-01/txt/msg00413.txt.bz2 > Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:34:41 +0100 (CET) > From: Mark Kettenis > CC: uweigand@de.ibm.com, brobecker@adacore.com, msnyder@specifix.com, > gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > > Btw, the manual does not say *EXPRESSION, it says *ADDRESS. > > That's fine as long as the manual says that ADDRESS is parsed as an > expression in the current language. It doesn't. It says it "may be any expression", which is vague, even inaccurate. > > Anyway, if "break *FILENAME:FUNCTION" does not need to work, then how > > does one set a breakpoint on the entry point of FILENAME:FUNCTION, > > after the suggested change that makes "break FUNCTION" behave > > differently than "break *FUNCTION"? > > Joel's change does not change how "break FUNCTION" works at all. It > changes what "break LINE" does in the case where LINE doesn't > correspond to an actual line of source code, and makes it more similar > to what "break FUNCTION" does, which is putting the breakpoint on the > first line of actual code in a function. My question was about putting the breakpoint on the beginning of the prolog of a function in another file, not about "break FUNCTION" or "break LINE". You didn't answer my question: how does one put a breakpoint on that address. For a function in the current file, or one whose name identifies it unambiguously, "break *FUNCTION" is the solution. But what about the case where FUNCTION alone is not enough to unambiguously specify a function?