From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id MBDPMF1mTWOWyA0AWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2022 10:27:41 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id BBCFE1E112; Mon, 17 Oct 2022 10:27:41 -0400 (EDT) Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=sourceware.org header.i=@sourceware.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=R9f4g7VT; dkim-atps=neutral X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E9691E0D5 for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2022 10:27:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CD4F385828C for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2022 14:27:40 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 2CD4F385828C DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1666016860; bh=c9L48fYd35FTfzET/914CQ7KLxFQsNwYd4aiMGUdUck=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=R9f4g7VT8Adq37qDfeQaGloiA1Sy1YzQCU0a7gsNRj0hOuYdeLxfGLVMEiLUrbSZf SLlnsWHbQfJA21BYAlowlqMbO2k35rYYsFIYs4n/eEbBuqhtAt1zYtpckXHvNsLuXj F+ZQA0GIg0PFgIPNwweLftgHWZSbsFWqDQkhNi/4= Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (smtp.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.11]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D5963858D28 for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2022 14:26:45 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 1D5963858D28 Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 29HEQZ3e030249 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 17 Oct 2022 10:26:40 -0400 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp.polymtl.ca 29HEQZ3e030249 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (unknown [217.28.27.60]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3EEAA1E0D5; Mon, 17 Oct 2022 10:26:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <769967d8-d2df-5f65-aed8-0c37c7efffc6@polymtl.ca> Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2022 10:26:34 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.3.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/8] GDB/Python: Make `None' stand for `unlimited' in setting integer parameters Content-Language: en-US To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Poly-FromMTA: (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) at Mon, 17 Oct 2022 14:26:35 +0000 X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Simon Marchi Cc: Simon Sobisch , Tom Tromey Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On 2022-08-17 18:04, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > Similarly to booleans and following the fix for PR python/29217 make > `gdb.parameter' accept `None' for `unlimited' with parameters of the > PARAM_UINTEGER, PARAM_INTEGER, and PARAM_ZUINTEGER_UNLIMITED types, as > `None' is already returned by parameters of the two former types, so > one might expect to be able to feed it back. It also makes it possible > to avoid the need to know what the internal integer representation is > for the special setting of `unlimited'. If I understand correctly, assigning None used to just raise an exception, and now it will be accepted for those kinds of parameters. So, I don't think there are backwards compatibility concerns here. If so: Approved-By: Simon Marchi Simon