Re: [RFA] parse_frame_specification (stack.c)

[Fernando Nasser <fnasser at redhat dot com>]

Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> Fernando Nasser wrote:
> >
> > David,
> >
> > The real problem here is that there is an ambiguity in this command
> > argument specification.  If a frame is specified as an address, it
> > should be proceeded by a "*" as we do in the break command.
> >
> > It seems that problems like this have been encountered before.  here is
> > the comment in the code that refers to s similar situation:
> 
> See:
> 
> http://sources.redhat.com/gdb/onlinedocs/gdb_7.html#SEC43
> 
> I believe David is preserving documented behavour.
> 

You got that right.  I mentioned that we could fix the syntax (manual
included) so it is not any longer ambiguous.

Instead of inventing a syntax, I suggested that we do as we already do
with breakpoints.  Numbers are breakpoints  *NNNNNNNN are addresses.  I
don't particularly like the breakpoints syntax.  I wish people had used
"#N" to indicate a breakpoint number or a stack level.  That would also
make things unambiguous.

But, anyway, frames at very low addresses are not very likely so I guess
we should just leave things as they are.



-- 
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat Canada Ltd.                     E-Mail:  fnasser@redhat.com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario   M4P 2C9