This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] mi-symbol-*
- From: Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer at nl dot linux dot org>
- To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at is dot elta dot co dot il>, Elena Zannoni <ezannoni at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com, Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 19:45:25 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] mi-symbol-*
- References: <20021105204529.GA11137@charis.vernstok> <15818.39944.755909.902776@localhost.redhat.com> <20021105204529.GA11137@charis.vernstok> <Pine.SUN.3.91.1021106085151.960H-100000@is>
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 08:56:23AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote about 'Re: [PATCH] mi-symbol-*':
> The documentation patch is approved, but please take care of these minor
> problems before it is committed:
>
> - Please break all lines inside @smallexample that are longer than 64
> characters, otherwise they will produce warnings from TeX and ugly
> results in the printed manual. (You can tell in a note that the
> broken line is one long line.)
>
> - Why did you add so many empty lines? IMHO, this produces unpleasant
> results, both in the on-line (Info and HTML) and printed formats.
>
> - Where you say "pattern", please add that the pattern is a regular
> expression.
All fixed; is the update ok?
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 11:59:52AM -0500, Elena Zannoni wrote about 'Re: [PATCH] mi-symbol-*':
> Info_line should return the core addr ranges for a given line number.
> You instead have implemented a different behavior: given a line number
> name, print the line number which we just gave as input, and the file name.
> Also in the usage and error messages, the use of the word 'symbol' is a bit
> inappropriate, because the argument of the command is not a symbol name.
Is there any documentation about the internals of gdb and what the
various terms mean? I do have some knowledge of how executables are
structured, but I don't know any details or specific terms.
> > +enum mi_cmd_result
> > +mi_cmd_symbol_info_function (char *command, char **argv, int argc)
> > +{
> > + char *function = "";
> > + struct symtabs_and_lines sals;
> > + struct symbol *sym;
> > + struct minimal_symbol *msym;
> > + struct cleanup *old_chain;
> > + char *args, **canonical;
> > +
> > + if (argc != 1)
> > + error ("mi_cmd_symbol_info_function: Usage: SYMBOL");
> > +
> > + args = argv[0];
> > +
> > + sals = decode_line_1 (&args, 1, NULL, 0, &canonical);
>
> this one could be ok, but there is contradictory information in the
> current documentation. It was documented as taking a symbol and
> returning the function where the symbol is in, however it suggest that
> it should provide the functionality that a gdbtk function
> provides. That gdbtk function however takes a linespec as argument.
>
> I think this mi command needs to be revisited.
> So, wait until the issue is cleared.
Any news on the interface?
Thanks,
Jelmer