This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Strangeness in set command
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>
- Cc: gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2008 20:12:43 +0300
- Subject: Re: Strangeness in set command
- References: <uod8os2n1.fsf@gnu.org> <jey77sp7xr.fsf@sykes.suse.de>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> From: Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>
> Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
> Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2008 18:45:04 +0200
>
> > (gdb) set s.st_mode=0x1ff
> > Ambiguous set command "s.st_mode=0x1ff"
> >
> > But this succeeds:
> >
> > (gdb) set (&s)->st_mode=0x1ff
> >
> > How come we are smart enough to support the latter, but not the
> > former?
>
> Because there are several set commands beginning with s. Use set
> variable to avoid the ambiguity.
Thanks.
Does anyone object to improving the error message to mention "set
variable"?