From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9400 invoked by alias); 13 Oct 2003 17:32:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 9377 invoked from network); 13 Oct 2003 17:32:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Oct 2003 17:32:39 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.24 #1 (Debian)) id 1A96Yg-00044C-H3 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 13:32:38 -0400 Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 17:32:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Unambiguously specifying source locations Message-ID: <20031013173238.GA10842@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <1065875539.13549.ezmlm@sources.redhat.com> <38B36630-FDA2-11D7-BB88-000A958F4C44@apple.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <38B36630-FDA2-11D7-BB88-000A958F4C44@apple.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00192.txt.bz2 On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 10:25:20AM -0700, Jim Ingham wrote: > I think the intent here is great! > > I have a heartfelt plea, however, from one who while not as > battle-scarred as some others, have waded my way through plenty of > decode_line_1 bugs... > > Is there any way we can not have to keep overloading the expression > parser with more specifications? It seems to me this is just a way to > obfuscate the user's intent so that we can get it wrong trying to > decode it later. Daniel's proposed syntax - no offense intended - is > sufficiently awful that it should give us pause. Would: > > break -shlib foo.dylib -file foo.c MyStaticFunction > > be all that awful? This is unambiguous, represents the user's intent > exactly, is not too hard to type, and trivial to parse. Then > internally, the breakpoint could actually hold all these separate bits > separately, rather than munging them into a canonical form which we can > trip over later on... > > We will probably have to support the specifications that we do now for > ever - though adding switches for them would allow unambiguous entry > and would probably be taken up by a good number of users cause it is > almost impossible to get wrong... Feel free to propose a better canonical form :) You basically just did, above. We need a canonical representation, for instance: - We use it internally to re-place breakpoints after rereading an objfile. - We would like to be able to display it so that breakpoints can be saved and reloaded. I guess the question is whether these are useful for anything other than specifying breakpoint (or tracepoint) locations. If not then flags to break might be canonical enough. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer