From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8499 invoked by alias); 4 Nov 2008 22:23:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 8458 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Nov 2008 22:23:58 -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; Tue, 04 Nov 2008 22:23:17 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 731EC10CE5; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 22:23:15 +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 576EC10C35; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 22:23:15 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KxUIs-0001Uc-Vv; Tue, 04 Nov 2008 17:23:14 -0500 Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 22:23:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Thiago Jung Bauermann Cc: Tom Tromey , Rob Quill , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Convenience functions (was: Re: New scope checking patch) Message-ID: <20081104222314.GB5391@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Thiago Jung Bauermann , Tom Tromey , Rob Quill , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <8f2776cb0801301557t2e265b62u56d6df7cbcec1c84@mail.gmail.com> <20081023134150.GA21234@caradoc.them.org> <1225834560.20764.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1225834560.20764.8.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: 2008-11/txt/msg00060.txt.bz2 On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 07:35:59PM -0200, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: > 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? Sounds reasonable to me. > 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... Yes - we've got to get the mechanism to do that in place anyway. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery