From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22882 invoked by alias); 8 Nov 2011 15:04:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 22852 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Nov 2011 15:04:05 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 08 Nov 2011 15:03:42 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pA8F3Z3O024128 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 8 Nov 2011 10:03:35 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pA8F3ZPJ010619; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 10:03:35 -0500 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pA8F3X2E013051; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 10:03:33 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb@sourceware.org, Matt Rice , Stan Shebs Subject: Re: Toward multicore GDB - Set theory References: <4EB088E7.8040107@earthlink.net> <201111081450.30461.pedro@codesourcery.com> Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 15:04:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <201111081450.30461.pedro@codesourcery.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Tue, 8 Nov 2011 14:50:30 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.90 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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 X-SW-Source: 2011-11/txt/msg00062.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: Pedro> That is [TRIGGER-SET] is a prefix, because it really is Pedro> the same meaning as applying the prefix in other commands. Pedro> That is, "the command applies to this set". For breakpoints, Pedro> it naturally means "the breakpoint applies/triggers to/on Pedro> this set". For "continue" it'd mean "continue this set", Pedro> for print, it'd mean "print this expression in the context Pedro> of this set", etc., etc.. There is a subtle difference, though, between break and other commands. Because breakpoints re-set, the trigger set must be captured and re-evaluated at re-set. I think it is all ok though. It is slightly weird but I think we can explain it adequately to users. Pedro> The "-stop" option is required when specifying a Pedro> stop set (compared to not requiring "-stop" and just Pedro> accepting the [] part, and LINESPEC is last. This gets rid Pedro> of LINESPEC ambiguity with obj-c at least, and leaves a saner Pedro> path open for other future options too. I've left the Pedro> `--' option separator too for the same reason (like in your Pedro> info macro & friends changes). Sounds very good to me. I think this is going to interact with my ambiguous breakpoint / linespec changes. At various points in the new code, linespec iterates over program spaces; this should be filtered according to the trigger set. I am wondering whether you are basing your work on this patch set, and if not, how we can best manage the changes. I would rather not be in a race to finish, but instead talk about how we can best cooperate. Tom