From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4225 invoked by alias); 18 Dec 2006 13:40:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 4215 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Dec 2006 13:40:15 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:40:09 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GwIip-0006Ua-5e; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 08:40:03 -0500 Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:40:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Steve Rodrigues Cc: Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch] Indirect access to GDB history variables Message-ID: <20061218134003.GC24800@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Steve Rodrigues , Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20061215024050.GA8750@linden.netapp.com> <20061216171025.GB14012@nevyn.them.org> <20061216184508.GA17120@nevyn.them.org> <20061218054558.GB27035@siml12.eng.netapp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061218054558.GB27035@siml12.eng.netapp.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) 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: 2006-12/txt/msg00240.txt.bz2 On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 09:45:58PM -0800, Steve Rodrigues wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote on Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 01:45:08PM -0500: > > > > I think that we should take the long-postponed jump to embedding > > > > scripting languages, rather than adding more complexity to the existing > > > > CLI. > > > > > ...[further discussion]... > > I assume that with the embedded scripting language, you'd allow input in a > 'interpreted' fashion; i.e. at the gdb prompt I could enter a Perl or > Python or Guile command directly, accessing (for example, with Perl) @history or > $history[$i]? Probably not that simply, no, but there would be some interaction. This is one of the things I don't know how it would work yet :-) > Would the embedded language support current CLI scripts or not? > I.e. if I have Perl-GDB, can I run my existing GDB scripts or only > Perl-ized versions of them? (We have quite a large pile and > migrating them to something else probably won't happen, at least in > any reasonable timeframe.) Yes, definitely, no CLI support would be removed. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery