From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26728 invoked by alias); 23 Oct 2013 17:33:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 26716 invoked by uid 89); 23 Oct 2013 17:33:23 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 17:33:22 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r9NHXJUf029618 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 23 Oct 2013 13:33:20 -0400 Received: from valrhona.uglyboxes.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r9NHXIS5003128 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 23 Oct 2013 13:33:19 -0400 Message-ID: <5268085E.2020607@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 17:33:00 -0000 From: Keith Seitz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii CC: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Expanding macros in breakpoint conditions References: <83vc0qk1jx.fsf@gnu.org> <87y55mk0tg.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <83k3h3j4vo.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <83k3h3j4vo.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-10/txt/msg00119.txt.bz2 On 10/23/2013 10:04 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > What I don't understand is why didn't GDB issue an error message in > this case. There's no label '707' in that function. Looks like the > linespec parser silently rejected the ":707" part, without telling > me. It would be nice if it didn't do this silently. My original submission for the linespec rewrite did actually do this, but to maintain backward compatibility, I was asked to remove it. Perhaps a warning or complaint might be a suitable compromise until this is properly implemented? Keith