From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29150 invoked by alias); 20 Jul 2007 18:22:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 29142 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Jul 2007 18:22:28 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from main.gmane.org (HELO ciao.gmane.org) (80.91.229.2) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Jul 2007 18:22:25 +0000 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IBx7J-0007Fm-8X for gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com; Fri, 20 Jul 2007 20:22:17 +0200 Received: from adh419.fdn.fr ([80.67.176.9]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 20 Jul 2007 20:22:17 +0200 Received: from ludo by adh419.fdn.fr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 20 Jul 2007 20:22:17 +0200 To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?=) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Allow printing of Guile values Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 19:37:00 -0000 Message-ID: <871wf3x7er.fsf@chbouib.org> References: <87ir8f2lrh.fsf@chbouib.org> <20070720152952.GB9407@caradoc.them.org> <87zm1ryspn.fsf@chbouib.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-URL: http://www.laas.fr/~lcourtes/ X-PGP-Key-ID: 0xEB1F5364 X-PGP-Key: http://www.laas.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 821D 815D 902A 7EAB 5CEE D120 7FBA 3D4F EB1F 5364 X-OS: i486-pc-linux-gnu User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux) 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: 2007-07/txt/msg00240.txt.bz2 Hi Jim, Jim Blandy writes: > Definitely. Part of the rationale for deleting it was, "Oh, if > someone shows up to keep it alive, we've still got it in CVS." I'll > be happy to review changes. The key is that someone make themselves > available to keep it working. Great. > A debugger should be able to inspect the state of programs in serious > disarray, so there's an argument against relying too much on invoking > functions in Guile. Certainly, though, the best code would draw a > clear distinction between scm-lang.c and scm-lang-guile.c. Agreed. However, to be very pragmatic, we may be better off with minimal support that works and doesn't add a significant maintenance burden. For instance, while valuable, interpretation of Guile values on the GDB side requires a significant amount of code that must be kept in sync with Guile. How would you like to proceed: would you like to reinstall the deleted files and patch against them, or would you prefer that we somehow start anew? Thanks, Ludovic.