From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18129 invoked by alias); 23 Apr 2012 13:30:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 18105 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Apr 2012 13:30:24 -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; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 13:30:08 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q3NDU4fb017349 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 23 Apr 2012 09:30:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q3NDU2WC025484; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 09:30:03 -0400 Message-ID: <4F95595A.8080106@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 13:35:00 -0000 From: Phil Muldoon MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Tromey CC: Siva Chandra , Doug Evans , Matt Rice , Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC - Python scripting] New methods Symtab.global_block and Symtab.static_block (docs included) References: <831unms3jy.fsf@gnu.org> <4F8F187D.3050402@redhat.com> <878vhsojgd.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <87sjfyi5rj.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <87lilmh9jf.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <87lilmh9jf.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> 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/msg00740.txt.bz2 On 04/23/2012 02:17 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Siva" == Siva Chandra writes: > > Siva> Overall, wrt this patch, what should we conclude? > > I think the patch is fine, and we're just discussing what exactly the > manual should say. My view is that we should not say anything, that it will just be confusing to the user. There is no user facing concept of a "static" or "global" block in GDB other than the Python API anyway. We have to keep API compatibility, so if the implementation were to change in GDB, we would have to just manage that change in the Python bindings (like we currently do now). There are many abstract concepts, that can be subject to change already (things like Program Spaces). Cheers, Phil