From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22612 invoked by alias); 4 Nov 2008 21:37:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 22541 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Nov 2008 21:37:04 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from igw2.br.ibm.com (HELO igw2.br.ibm.com) (32.104.18.25) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 04 Nov 2008 21:36:10 +0000 Received: from d24relay01.br.ibm.com (unknown [9.8.31.16]) by igw2.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A18817F4B5 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 19:34:40 -0200 (BRDT) Received: from d24av02.br.ibm.com (d24av02.br.ibm.com [9.18.232.47]) by d24relay01.br.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.1) with ESMTP id mA4LZkwa3383404 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 18:35:46 -0300 Received: from d24av02.br.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d24av02.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id mA4La6Ul006912 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 19:36:07 -0200 Received: from [9.8.11.66] ([9.8.11.66]) by d24av02.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mA4La59g006885; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 19:36:05 -0200 Subject: Re: Convenience functions (was: Re: New scope checking patch) From: Thiago Jung Bauermann To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Tom Tromey , Rob Quill , gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <20081023134150.GA21234@caradoc.them.org> References: <8f2776cb0801301557t2e265b62u56d6df7cbcec1c84@mail.gmail.com> <20081023134150.GA21234@caradoc.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 21:37:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1225834560.20764.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2008-11/txt/msg00055.txt.bz2 El jue, 23-10-2008 a las 09:41 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz escribió: > [Preachy interlude: splitting up patches good! posting unrelated > patches at the bottom of threads bad! Until Tom mentioned it on IRC > this week I'd completely forgotten this patch had been posted.] > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 09:33:30PM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote: > > >>>>> "Rob" == Rob Quill writes: > > > > Rob> Where can I find out about internal functions? > > > > I've appended the patch. It adds a new sort of value, which is an > > internal function. These are just like ordinary functions in an > > expression but they run inside gdb -- not the inferior. The user sees > > them as convenience variables of "internal function" type. > > I looked through this patch, since I have another use for it too. It > looks fine to me, except that of course it is missing documentation > and test cases. For test cases we'd need a function to test with; > perhaps Rob's? Since Tromey mentioned that Rob's patch is not correct in its current form, I'm thinking of implementing it in python and use it to direct my choice of next python patches to post here (i.e., my next set of python patches would have the goal of making a scope checking script work). Then I could work on testcases and documentation. What do you think? The upside is that this will help focus the python submissions to enabling a useful functionality as soon as possible. The downside (or maybe it's not a downside at all) is that a scope checking feature is being asked by users, so it would mean that such python script would preferably be shipped in GDB releases... -- []'s Thiago Jung Bauermann IBM Linux Technology Center