This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH v4 6/9] Explicit locations: introduce explicit locations
- From: Doug Evans <xdje42 at gmail dot com>
- To: Keith Seitz <keiths at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 21:42:17 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/9] Explicit locations: introduce explicit locations
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20150507180523 dot 19629 dot 77846 dot stgit at valrhona dot uglyboxes dot com> <20150507180559 dot 19629 dot 88488 dot stgit at valrhona dot uglyboxes dot com> <m31tiequqq dot fsf at sspiff dot org> <555A480B dot 9050200 at redhat dot com> <555BB47E dot 9060500 at redhat dot com> <555BB53F dot 8040307 at redhat dot com> <555BB5DF dot 90906 at redhat dot com> <555BB741 dot 4050608 at redhat dot com>
Keith Seitz <keiths@redhat.com> writes:
> On 05/19/2015 03:14 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> On 05/19/2015 11:12 PM, Keith Seitz wrote:
>>> On 05/19/2015 03:09 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>>
>> OK, as long as
>>
>> b -source 'file with spaces -line 10' -line 20
>>
>> works as expected (might be worth it of a test), the point is
>> moot then.
>
> I think it does what is expected:
>
> (gdb) b -source 'file with spaces -line 10' -line 20
> No source file named file with spaces -line 10.
This error message needs to better delineate the file name.
One could either put it in quotes (and escape internal quotes),
or change it to something like:
No such source file: file with spaces -line 10.
> I'll add a test if one is missing. These "with spaces" tests appear in
> ls-errs.exp and can be obscured by the fact that they test the parsing
> by generating errors.
I'm still really uneasy with supporting
b -source file with spaces -line 20
This is intended to be the low-level access to specifying locations.
Low level APIs shouldn't be too concerned with easing typing.
It's easier to relax restrictions than impose them after the fact.
Can we require such files to be quoted today,
and then later relax the restriction if there's a compelling
reason to do so?