[RFA 1/2] Linespec rewrite (update 2)
Keith Seitz
keiths@redhat.com
Fri Mar 30 15:59:00 GMT 2012
On 03/30/2012 08:33 AM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Keith" == Keith Seitz<keiths@redhat.com> writes:
>
> Keith> I don't know. The whole comma thing is undocumented. The test suite
> Keith> does contain list ranges. That's how I originally discovered
> Keith> this. I've removed the list mode restriction, though, and it doesn't
> Keith> affect test results at all.
>
> You can write a test case using python that calls gdb.decode_line and
> examines the remainder of the line.
I'll see about writing a test that does this.
> Comma-termination isn't documented but I think it has to be preserved
> anyway.
Already done. :-)
> Keith> Yes, we can end up with a canonical form like "function:+5" or
> Keith> "file:+5". The former is permitted (per recent maintainer request)
> Keith> because we currently ignore the offset. [It is unprocessed in
> Keith> convert_linespec_to_sals.] I'm not a fan of this,
>
> What is the rationale for having a linespec where parts are ignored?
> I couldn't think of a use for it. And, if current cvs rejects it, then
> it seems like it is interfering with a useful future feature as well.
I agree, but perhaps I simply misunderstood Joel?
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2012-03/msg00904.html
Keith
More information about the Gdb-patches
mailing list