This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [rfc/testsuite/mi] use gdb_get_line_number
- From: Michael Chastain <mec dot gnu at mindspring dot com>
- To: cagney at gnu dot org
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com, ezannoni at redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 14:53:14 -0400
- Subject: Re: [rfc/testsuite/mi] use gdb_get_line_number
- References: <41188B2A.nailK7Y1RD9SU@mindspring.com><411A609D.3080306@gnu.org>
Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org> wrote:
ac> Yea, not really. basics.c:callee3 && basics.callee3.prolog?
Okay, I'll take all the line numbers out of the test names, somehow.
mec> # Locate line numbers in basics.c.
mec> set line_callee4 [expr [gdb_get_line_number "callee4 ("]]
mec> set line_callee4_plus_2 [expr [gdb_get_line_number "callee4 ("] + 2]
ac> I'm wondering if the latter should be called:
ac> line_callee4_past_prologue
Now that you mention it, the "*_plus_2" names look dorky.
Perhaps:
set line_callee4_head [expr [gdb_get_line_number "callee4 ("]]
set line_callee4_body [expr [gdb_get_line_number "callee4 ("] + 2]
I like "line_foo_body", but "line_foo_head" sounds a little funny.
Perhaps "line_foo_definition" or "line_foo_defn".
I don't like "line_foo_prologue" because these are lines in the
source file, and the prologue is a property of the object code.
I'll work up another RFC.
Michael C