This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] 12843
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 3:12 AM, Pedro Alves <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Monday 29 August 2011 08:20:40, André Pönitz wrote:
>> Indeed. Something like
>> ?25-break-insert -f "\"some thing.cpp\":794"
>> tends to work. I found it non-obvious in the beginning...
>> > (I'd like -break-insert to avoid linespecs completely, which would be a
>> > big improvement IMO, ...
>> From an MI client's point of view, passing all location information as
>> a single argument is neither wanted nor needed.
>> ?25-break-insert --file "some thing.cpp" --line 794
>> or even require everything to be quoted as in
>> ?25-break-insert ?--file "some thing.cpp" --line "794"
>> would be easier to handle than what's there now.
>> > ... but of course we still have to worry about compatibility.)
>> Just using new flags for the parameters should do the trick in this case.
> Yeah, though I expect frontends to support letting the user specify
> manually where to insert the breakpoint (say, with a popup dialog
> where you write foo.exe:bar or something more complicated, thus we'd
> always still need some form of linespec support in MI.
there's always interpreter-exec console seems a decent way of handling
user input *shrug*...
that said, at some point I thought about (instead of the objfile
'break foo.so:func' syntax)...
that it might be worthwhile to consider linespec parsing and the
thus linespec decomposes into 'objfile=foo.so symbol=func', that means
i suppose any commands (not sure there are any non-python/non-user
defined ones, i at least have a python one) linespec commands would
but `operator=' seemed to throw a wrench into that, though keys
unknown to linespec could be considered however i suppose.
then making linespec accept the decomposed or traditional linespec
25-break-insert ?"file=\"some thing.cpp\" line=794"
or 25-break-insert -f "\"some thing.cpp\":794"