From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17664 invoked by alias); 16 Oct 2008 12:36:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 17655 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Oct 2008 12:36:32 -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; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:35:53 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 232CC108C6; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:35:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E683C10009; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:35:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KqS50-0008UU-Hi; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 08:35:50 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:36:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Thiago Jung Bauermann Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa] expose gdb values to python, mark II Message-ID: <20081016123550.GB31057@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Thiago Jung Bauermann , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20081014123440.GA7842@caradoc.them.org> <1224130414.6967.89.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1224130414.6967.89.camel@localhost.localdomain> 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/msg00402.txt.bz2 On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 01:13:34AM -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: > > This only works for scalars (now including pointers), right? Do you > > have to call overloaded operators explicitly? > > Only scalars, yes. I didn't think about overloaded operators, but for > now yes, that's what you have to do. If GDB's expression evaluator > already has support for overloaded operators, I guess we could use that > to support this case... It does; this is the same question of what the expression evaluator should do versus what value objects should do that we had earlier. I think we'll have to come back to it later. > Great! Committed the following. Hooray! Thanks again for the work you're doing on this merge. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery