The concrete type of an interface only contains the abbreviated
package name, we must construct a map from package names to package
paths to be able to resolve the concrete type of an interface.
packagename.SomeFunction should match
github.com/someuser/packagename.SomeFunction since the former is
the familiar syntax.
To disambiguate between io.SomeFunction and
github.com/someuser/somepackage/io.SomeFunction specify one extra
slash at the start of the location specifier: /io.SomeFunction.
Fixes Issue #296
Supported operators:
- All (binary and unary) operators between basic types except <-,
++ and -- (includes & to take the address of an expression)
- Comparison operators between supported compound types
- Typecast of integer constants into pointer types
- struct members
- indexing of arrays, slices and strings
- slicing of arrays, slices and strings
- pointer dereferencing
- true, false and nil constants
Implements #116, #117 and #251
Instead of trying to be clever and make an 'educated guess' as to where
the flow of control may go next, simple do the more naive, yet correct,
approach of setting a breakpoint everywhere we can in the function and
seeing where we end up. On top of this we were already setting a
breakpoint at the return address and deferred functions, so that remains
the same.
This removes a lot of gnarly, hard to maintain code and takes all the
guesswork out of this command.
Fixes#281
Breakpoints, tracepoints, etc.. take a location spec as input. This
patch improves the expressiveness of that API. It allows:
* Breakpoint at line
* Breakpoint at function (handling package / receiver smoothing)
* Breakpoint at address
* Breakpoint at file:line
* Setting breakpoint based off regexp
the entry point of a function is the beginning of the prologue, which can be run multiple times for each invocation of a function if the stack needs to be expanded or the scheduler needs to be run.
Instead of maintaining two separate client / server implementations,
maintain only the more lightweight JSON-RPC service. The reasoning
behind the merging of the original HTTP service was ease of tooling, in
other words low barrier of entry for external clients (editor
integrations, etc...).
I believe the JSON-RPC solution still satisfies that constraint while
have the advantage of being a more lightweight solution. HTTP, while
highly supported in most modern languages, carries with it too many
features we would never take advantage of. The RPC architecture seems
a more natural approach.
The infrastructure set up during the initial HTTP service implementation
was leveraged in the JSON-RPC implementation, so if any of those
original authors are reading this commit message: thank you for that
work, it was not in vain even if though the original HTTP service is not
being removed.
