From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10106 invoked by alias); 27 Apr 2015 19:24:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 10094 invoked by uid 89); 27 Apr 2015 19:24:19 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 19:24:19 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t3RJOIWT021697 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 15:24:18 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t3RJOGaI032215; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 15:24:17 -0400 Message-ID: <553E8CE0.40903@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 19:55:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Kratochvil CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Phil Muldoon Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] compile: Add 'set compile-gcc' References: <20150423203402.23140.92757.stgit@host1.jankratochvil.net> <20150423203413.23140.35224.stgit@host1.jankratochvil.net> <20150423210815.GA8626@host1.jankratochvil.net> <553E5A1E.5000003@redhat.com> <20150427175445.GA12679@host1.jankratochvil.net> In-Reply-To: <20150427175445.GA12679@host1.jankratochvil.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-04/txt/msg01015.txt.bz2 On 04/27/2015 06:54 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 17:47:42 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote: >> IIUC, gdb will always apply the same search as when this is set >> empty? That is, the user can also set this to a regex. So it seems to me >> that the documentation (manual and help) doesn't match the implementation? > > That it can be also a regex is an API bug because I wanted to make a minimal > API change. Rather than officially documenting such bug I find then better to > rather make a proper complex change to the API. Given that you requested an > API rework anyway I will try to post the new API even with this change. This overload had given me lots of pause, and trying to think it through (it wasn't clear what the intention was), it seemed to me that it kind of made at least some sense to allow specifying a different regex, but details of the search algorithms are foggy to me. It probably really doesn't make sense to overload. Given we now clearly understand how to add new methods and it isn't that complex, and we're already bumping the API, yes, let's please avoid an overload hack when we don't need it, avoiding such confusions. Thanks, Pedro Alves