This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFC/RFA] Add handling for unqualified Ada operators in linespecs
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 == '"'
> 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 "+".