GNU bug report logs - #66363
gdb-control-commands-regexp issues

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>
Subject: bug#66363: closed (Re: bug#66363: gdb-control-commands-regexp issues)
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2023 16:36:01 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Your bug report

#66363: gdb-control-commands-regexp issues

which was filed against the emacs package, has been closed.

The explanation is attached below, along with your original report.
If you require more details, please reply to 66363 <at> debbugs.gnu.org.

-- 
66363: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=66363
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 66363-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#66363: gdb-control-commands-regexp issues
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2023 17:34:48 +0100

Pushed to master after finally finding a machine with gdb on it.

[Message part 3 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>
To: Emacs Bug Report <bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org>
Subject: gdb-control-commands-regexp issues
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2023 17:07:22 +0200

[Message part 4 (text/plain, inline)]

The variable `gdb-control-commands-regexp` in gdb-mi.el cannot work as currently defined and used. Only group 3 is of  interest, but that group hasn't referred to anything useful for several years.

Group 3 probably refers to a part of the regex's tail where the command argument is matched:

   "\\([[:blank:]]+\\([^[:blank:]]*\\)\\)*$"

However, this seems to be broken as well, because all groups here are inside repetitions. This part of the regexp is also exponential in form if not in practice but we'd better simplify it anyway.

Attached is a suggested patch which makes explicit the command abbreviations matched, and leaves only a single submatch. It also changes the tail to assuming that the command argument doesn't contain non-newlines (or the final eol anchor wouldn't make sense) but that it can contain spaces (which seems reasonable). However, right now the argument is only checked for being non-empty or not.

I don't have a working gdb setup at the moment so if someone would be kind to test it, I would be very grateful for it.

[gdb-control-commands-regexp.diff (application/octet-stream, attachment)]

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.