This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [RFC/RFA] do not call decode_compound with Ada expressions.

>>>>> "Joel" == Joel Brobecker <> writes:

Joel> Generally speaking, I think it would probably make sense to always
Joel> perform language-specific checks such as these only when the language
Joel> matches the check. With the current infrastructure, it would lead to
Joel> a lot of "if language is ... then [do...]", which would probably hard
Joel> to maintain, although maybe no less hard than it is now.  Perhaps
Joel> the work that KeithS is doing to parse the linespec will allow us
Joel> to have true language-specific evaluation of the linespec. I am
Joel> not sure yet.

I think we should have a good plan for how to handle these things.

If linespec can't be language-independent, then IMO it should be calling
methods on struct language_defn.  The current approach of examining the
current_language is quite bad.  (And just to be clear, C++ is probably
the worst offender here right now.)

Joel> +	 /* We really should only be doing this for languages where
Joel> +	    it actually makes sense.  For instance, Ada does not use
Joel> +	    this type of syntax, and trying to apply this logic on
Joel> +	    an Ada linespec may trigger a spurious error (for instance,
Joel> +	    decode_compound does not like expressions such as `ops."<"',
Joel> +	    which is a valid function name in Ada).  */
Joel> +	  if (current_language->la_language != language_ada)

There is a comment saying this is for C++ and Java.
How about checking explicitly for those and nothing else?


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]