From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22501 invoked by alias); 19 Jul 2008 21:13:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 22491 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Jul 2008 21:13:03 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 19 Jul 2008 21:12:44 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B016798373; Sat, 19 Jul 2008 21:12:42 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 931BD9805C; Sat, 19 Jul 2008 21:12:42 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KKJjN-0001MY-Ud; Sat, 19 Jul 2008 17:12:41 -0400 Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 21:13:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Thiago Jung Bauermann Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] iRe: [RFC][patch 1/9] initial Python support Message-ID: <20080719211241.GB4920@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Thiago Jung Bauermann , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20080429155212.444237503@br.ibm.com> <20080429155304.288626880@br.ibm.com> <20080528205921.GA2969@caradoc.them.org> <20080615181833.uxmo25mg0kko40kw@imap.linux.ibm.com> <1216107418.14956.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1216245620.12209.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080718195010.GA14356@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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: 2008-07/txt/msg00379.txt.bz2 On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 04:36:47PM -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: > > Can we call it python-utils.c or something else, instead? IMO having > > different naming for the source file and object is very confusing. > > Actually I prefer to keep it this way. I am following the existing > convention used to build other GDB components which live in their own > subdirectories (cli/, mi/ and tui/). > > Since by the end of this patch series there will be 13 Python-related .c > and .h files, I prefer to put them in their own subdirectory. IMHO having a > flat source tree, with all source files lumped together, is more confusing > than an object file named differently (but not much) than its source file. That's not what I meant. Leaving it in python/ is fine. But call it python/python-utils.c. All the cli/ sources are prefixed, ditto the mi/ sources. > Perhaps get the python-config output and filter out options from a > blacklist? Use your hardcoded options, but check using autoconf that they're valid for the current compiler. IIRC we do something similar for warning flags already. > > If the list of python configuration variables grows, this will get out > > of hand; I suggest sharing the init code regardless of HAVE_PYTHON. > > You mean having #ifdefs inside _initialize_python itself? Right. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery