This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [RFC/RFA] Add handling for unqualified Ada operators in linespecs

Hi Tom

Thanks for the review!

> I think we should continue trying to look at solutions to linespec and
> symbol table problems in as language-independent a way as possible.
> And, if we can't be language-independent, we should endeavor to have
> clean code; the current stuff is still a big mess.

I agree. I haven't had much time to think about this, but I think
it might be quite a challenging project. I need to get up to speed
on Keith's project...

> Joel> +  p = *argptr;
> Joel> +  if (p[0] == '"'
> Why only double quotes?

Because the double quotes are part of the operator name... Eg:

    function "+" (A, B: My_Type) return My_Type;

And if we wanted to be pedantic, the debugger should also accept:

    (gdb) break '"+"'

By comparison, '+' is an entirely different thing (the character +),
and thus breaking on '+' should be rejected.

That being said, if it helps Keith's work to treat them similarly,
then I don't mind being a little approximate here, and treat both
quote characters as the equivalent for linespec purposes. I doubt
that any Ada programer would ever write...

    (gdb) break '+'

... and if that were the case, that he'd complain much about it
inserting a breakpoint on operator "+".


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]