[RFA/PATCH] breakpoint.c: fix until command

[Elena Zannoni]

Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
 > On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 05:12:50PM -0500, Elena Zannoni wrote:
 > > Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
 > >  > > >  > >  > I'd be happier if those two behaviors had different names, but the
 > >  > > >  > >  > logical name I'd give to both of them is "until", so I guess we'll just
 > >  > > >  > >  > have to live with this.  (3) is meaningful when inside the function
 > >  > > >  > >  > too, and with this scheme there's no way to express that without using
 > >  > > >  > >  > breakpoints; but I think that's a small loss.
 > >  > > >  > >  >
 > >  > > >  > >
 > >  > > >  > > Actually I start to believe that we need 2 separate commands.  One
 > >  > > >  > > would do the current behavior the other would be w/o frame check.  We
 > >  > > >  > > already have 'jump' (and it means something different). Maybe 'goto'?
 > >  > > >  > > I can't think of a decent name. 'reach', 'get to'?
 > >  > > >  >
 > >  > > >  > run-to?
 > >  > > >  > I like the idea of restricting "until" to the current function,
 > >  > > >  > and using a separate command for locations outside the current function.
 > >  > > >  > (or inside, if you want the effect of a temporary breakpoint).
 > >  > > >  > This would remove the ambiguity.
 > >  > > > 
 > >  > > > I think that if we can find a decent name, there is more agreement
 > >  > > > towards separating the behaviors. Except that 'run' in gdb means start
 > >  > > > from the beginning, so runto can be ambiguous (it is also used in the
 > >  > > > testsuite a lot with the meaning of start over).
 > >  > > 
 > >  > > Ah, that's right.  I was thinking of that usage, but I forgot
 > >  > > that it starts from the beginning.
 > >  > > 
 > >  > > Doesn't the testsuite also have a similar command that means
 > >  > > "set a breakpoint here and continue till you get there"?
 > >  > 
 > >  > Yes, it's gdb_continue_to_breakpoint, but it's not quite the same.
 > >  > 
 > >  > I asked my official layperson for ideas on what to call this, and got
 > >  > back:
 > >  >   "until first foo.c:40"
 > >  >   "until current foo.c:40"
 > >  > 
 > >  > With a little massaging, how about one of:
 > >  >   "until first <line>"
 > >  >   "until-first <line>"
 > >  >   "until -first <line>"
 > >  > ?
 > >  > 
 > >  > Me, I'm partial to the third form; then you can have:
 > >  >   until -first func
 > >  >   until -current func
 > >  > 
 > > 
 > > I am not clear what first vs. current means. You mean first as 'first
 > > time you cross' that given location? So you would drop the "called
 > > from the current frame" restriction.
 > 
 > Yeah, that was my basic idea.
 > 
 > >  > And make one of those the default.  But this is risks starting the
 > >  > argument about syntax of options to CLI commands all over again.  It
 > >  > seems to me that these are both logical things to do for "until", so
 > >  > why not call them both "until", if we can agree on a syntax?  
 > >  > 
 > > 
 > > I don't much like having options, it's too much to type. :-) I think
 > > we should leave the until as it is, name and all. Or it will confuse
 > > people even more.  I like 'to' as a possible simple name for the other
 > > form.  Or 'through'.
 > 
 > The problem is, neither to or through makes sense to me as an option; I
 > can't figure out what it will do.
 > 

Not as an option, I was thinking as a separate command.
(to tell you the through, it should just be an argument to 'continue').

Elena

 > -- 
 > Daniel Jacobowitz
 > MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer