From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15597 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2006 10:04:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 15584 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Jan 2006 10:04:49 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nile.gnat.com (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Jan 2006 10:04:47 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B27B148CDD5; Mon, 16 Jan 2006 05:04:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 27377-01-10; Mon, 16 Jan 2006 05:04:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (dhcp10.gnat.com [205.232.38.232]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 628DF48CDC9; Mon, 16 Jan 2006 05:04:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <43CB6FBD.4080905@adacore.com> Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 10:04:00 -0000 From: Robert Dewar User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jim Blandy CC: Paul Koning , comar@adacore.com, hilfingr@gnat.com, gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: : Re: [RFC] multiple breakpoints from FILE:LINE References: <43C9AAA8.2030605@adacore.com> <17354.31047.417000.385481@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <43CA888E.20607@adacore.com> <8f2776cb0601152258n1210346ak95154a1dda2a22d1@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <8f2776cb0601152258n1210346ak95154a1dda2a22d1@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-01/txt/msg00138.txt.bz2 Jim Blandy wrote: >In your example (if I'm guessing my way through Ada and your .gdbinit >user-defined functions properly), there is an ambiguity in what >"parent" refers to; the menu lets you select one. > > Just to be clear here. Cyrille Comar had said that he does not want the menus in the "legitimate ambiguity" (overloading) case either, and that's what I was disagreeing with. I agree that the file:line situation is quite different, and I think the idea of two possible commands there makes sense (though I still question the need in the inlined subprogram case).