Skip to content

itset naming should be more restrictive #8

@simark

Description

@simark

There is an asymmetry between what is accepted by defset/itset define as a group name, and what the spec syntax accepts. We should reject names that aren't compatible with the syntax.

(gdb) itset define spatule-123 t1.1
(gdb) itset view
all contains:
  inferiors: 1, 2
  threads: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
  cores: 0, 0, 0, 2, 3, 2, 1, 0, 2, 1
empty contains:
running contains:
  inferiors: 1, 2
  threads: 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10
  cores: 0, 0, 2, 3, 1, 0, 2, 1
stopped contains:
  inferiors: 1, 2
  threads: 1, 6
  cores: 0, 2
I contains:
  threads: 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
  cores: 2, 1, 0, 2, 1
T contains:
  inferiors: 2
L contains:
  inferiors: 1
  threads: 1, 6
  cores: 0, 2
spatule-123 contains:
  inferiors: 1, 2
  threads: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
  cores: 0, 0, 0, 2, 3, 2, 1, 0, 2, 1
(gdb) itfocus spatule-123
Unknown named I/T set: `spatule'

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions