From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29513 invoked by alias); 29 Mar 2010 15:15:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 29504 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Mar 2010 15:15:47 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout21.012.net.il (HELO mtaout21.012.net.il) (80.179.55.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:15:42 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout21.012.net.il by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0L0100H00UBXAM00@a-mtaout21.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 18:15:39 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.127.176.135]) by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0L0100H7BUE2AQ00@a-mtaout21.012.net.il>; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 18:15:39 +0300 (IDT) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:15:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [patch][python] Add breakpoint support. In-reply-to: <4BB0BEE7.4080305@redhat.com> To: Phil Muldoon Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83d3yn17mm.fsf@gnu.org> References: <4BB0B063.6000600@redhat.com> <83k4sv19wm.fsf@gnu.org> <4BB0BEE7.4080305@redhat.com> 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: 2010-03/txt/msg00995.txt.bz2 > Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:53:27 +0100 > From: Phil Muldoon > CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > >> +@tindex gdb.Breakpoint > >> +@tindex Breakpoint > > > > You already added index entries with the same names, albeit in > > different letter-case, elsewhere in the manual. Why is it a good idea > > to have these here as well? > > > Not sure what you mean here, can you please elaborate? You have these index entries in your patch: +@findex gdb.breakpoints +@defun breakpoints +@tindex gdb.Breakpoint +@tindex Breakpoint They are identical, except for the letter-case. > >> +If a watchpoint type is not provided, it is assumed to be a @var{WP_READ} > >> +type. > > > > ?? Really? WP_WRITE sounds a more logical choice, as it's the default > > watchpoint type in GDB. > > > I do not have any strong feelings here. I can make it write by > default if you think it would be more sensible. WP_WRITE is what I'd expect, but I'd be interested in what others think. > >> +@defivar Breakpoint location > >> +This attribute holds the location of the breakpoint, as specified by > >> +the user. It is a string. If the breakpoint does not have a location > >> +(that is, it is a watchpoint) an exception will be raised. > > > > Is it wise to raise an exception? Why not return something sensible > > instead? > > > >> +the user. It is a string. If the breakpoint does not have an > >> +expression (the breakpoint is not a watchpoint) an exception will be > >> +raised. > > > > Same here. > > > Would returning Py_NONE work? Yes, I think so.