+ {
+ char *q;
+ if (word == text)
+ /* Return exactly p. */
+ return_val[return_val_used++] = p;
+ else if (word > text)
+ {
+ /* Return some portion of p. */
+ q = xmalloc (strlen (p) + 5);
+ strcpy (q, p + (word - text));
+ return_val[return_val_used++] = q;
+ free (p);
+ }
+ else
+ {
+ /* Return some of TEXT plus p. */
+ q = xmalloc (strlen (p) + (text - word) + 5);
+ strncpy (q, word, text - word);
+ q[text - word] = '\0';
+ strcat (q, p);
+ return_val[return_val_used++] = q;
+ free (p);
+ }
+ }
+ subsequent_name = 1;
+ }
+#if 0
+ /* There is no way to do this just long enough to affect quote inserting
+ without also affecting the next completion. This should be fixed in
+ readline. FIXME. */
+ /* Insure that readline does the right thing
+ with respect to inserting quotes. */
+ rl_completer_word_break_characters = "";
+#endif
+ return return_val;
+}
+
+/* Here are some useful test cases for completion. FIXME: These should
+ be put in the test suite. They should be tested with both M-? and TAB.
+
+ "show output-" "radix"
+ "show output" "-radix"
+ "p" ambiguous (commands starting with p--path, print, printf, etc.)
+ "p " ambiguous (all symbols)
+ "info t foo" no completions
+ "info t " no completions
+ "info t" ambiguous ("info target", "info terminal", etc.)
+ "info ajksdlfk" no completions
+ "info ajksdlfk " no completions
+ "info" " "
+ "info " ambiguous (all info commands)
+ "p \"a" no completions (string constant)
+ "p 'a" ambiguous (all symbols starting with a)
+ "p b-a" ambiguous (all symbols starting with a)
+ "p b-" ambiguous (all symbols)
+ "file Make" "file" (word break hard to screw up here)
+ "file ../gdb.stabs/we" "ird" (needs to not break word at slash)
+ */
+
+/* Generate completions one by one for the completer. Each time we are
+ called return another potential completion to the caller. The function
+ is misnamed; it just completes on commands or passes the buck to the
+ command's completer function; the stuff specific to symbol completion
+ is in make_symbol_completion_list.
+
+ TEXT is readline's idea of the "word" we are looking at; we don't really
+ like readline's ideas about word breaking so we ignore it.