This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA 0/9] Explicit locations v2 - Introduction
- From: Doug Evans <xdje42 at gmail dot com>
- To: Keith Seitz <keiths at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "gdb-patches\ at sourceware dot org ml" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 12:49:36 -0700
- Subject: Re: [RFA 0/9] Explicit locations v2 - Introduction
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <536BC52D dot 80800 at redhat dot com>
Keith Seitz <keiths@redhat.com> writes:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to resurrect this project from last year.
>
> This patch series introduces "explicit" locations, which allow users
> to explicitly specify location attributes when setting
> breakpoints. This feature can be especially handy, for example, when
> an application defines multiple functions of the same name:
>
> (gdb) break -source file1.c -function multiple_symbols_with_this_name
>
> In this case, gdb will only attempt to set a breakpoint in the given
> source file. If the given symbol is not defined in the file, gdb will
> do the usual pending breakpoint query.
>
> This revision is largely the same as the one I posted last year with
> one notable change: I have implemented probe locations.
>
> Consequently, this API change now supports the following "event
> locations": linespec, address (formerly "*EXPR"), explicit, and probe.
>
> I have attempted to break up the patch to assist review. The intent is
> to apply all patches approved. Nonetheless, each patch may be applied
> sequentially and should not cause any build failures or introduce any
> test suite regressions.
>
> I have tested each patch on both x86_64 native and native-gdbserver.
Hi.
I've read the patch set twice more now, including reading the patched code.
[That's what weekends are for, right? :-)]
I've got a high level question, and a few nits.
Before I impose submitting another version of the patch I'm hoping
we can get the remaining high level issues resolved first.
I think I better understand the things you have to go through to parse
linespecs, but there's still something here that needs more work.
I think it'll just involve a bit of API tweaking, so nothing major.
I'll leave the discussion to the email with the patch.
Thanks for the effort so far!
Sorry this is taking awhile to review.