From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4681 invoked by alias); 1 Oct 2008 11:40:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 4671 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Oct 2008 11:40:28 -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; Wed, 01 Oct 2008 11:39:42 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A813D10D2A; Wed, 1 Oct 2008 11:39:39 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80D38104B9; Wed, 1 Oct 2008 11:39:39 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Kl03O-0000l6-RV; Wed, 01 Oct 2008 07:39:38 -0400 Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 11:40:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Thiago Jung Bauermann Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfc] expose gdb values to python Message-ID: <20081001113938.GA2892@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Thiago Jung Bauermann , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20080925114659.GA30878@caradoc.them.org> <1222704906.8567.45.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080929165930.GA19283@caradoc.them.org> <1222747562.8567.87.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080930124105.GA29401@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: 2008-10/txt/msg00011.txt.bz2 On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 12:18:29AM -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > And I think it should have the same solution. There's a default > > architecture for these cases (depending on how GDB was built). > > Which is current_gdbarch, as far as I can tell. Right. > I'll provide a new version of the patch which uses it when gdb.Value > cannot get one from a nearby type's objfile. How about we use it consistently, instead? I'd be very confused if what other types in the expression changed which gdbarch to use... -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery