From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7092 invoked by alias); 18 Apr 2012 19:53:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 7084 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Apr 2012 19:53:11 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 19:52:28 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q3IJqNk9031389 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 18 Apr 2012 15:52:25 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q3IJdfWT019098; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 15:39:42 -0400 Message-ID: <4F8F187D.3050402@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 20:45:00 -0000 From: Phil Muldoon MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Siva Chandra CC: Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Doug Evans Subject: Re: [RFC - Python scripting] New methods Symtab.global_block and Symtab.static_block (docs included) References: <831unms3jy.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2012-04/txt/msg00605.txt.bz2 On 04/18/2012 09:49 AM, Siva Chandra wrote: >>> +@defun Symtab.global_block () >>> +Return the global block of the underlying symbol table. Note that, >>> +though highly unlikely, the returned @code{gdb.Block} objects are not >>> +guaranteed to be identical across different @value{GDBN} releases. >>> +@end defun >>> + >>> +@defun Symtab.static_block () >>> +Return the static block of the underlying symbol table. Note that, >>> +though highly unlikely, the returned @code{gdb.Block} objects are not >>> +guaranteed to be identical across different @value{GDBN} releases. >>> +@end defun > > Eli> I think it would be a good idea to have here a cross-reference to > Eli> "Blocks in Python". > Eli> > Eli> Also, the 2 identical sentences about the objects not being preserved > Eli> across GDB releases should probably be replaced by just one sentence, > Eli> saying this for both types of blocks. > > Thanks Eli, for taking a look. I have modified according to your > comments. I would like you to take a look at the doc changes again > since the suggestion wasn't objective for the second change. > ChangeLog correction pointed to by Phil, and the use of accessor > macros as suggested by Tom, are also in the attached patch. FWIW, I would still like to see a clarification of the static/global documentation regarding the "this might change" comment. Sorry to be a stickler on this, but I think it is important we don't start hinting at API breakages without an adequate explanation as to what may change, and why. (Given that there is a need to put that disclaimer in there in the first place). Cheers, Phil