From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27768 invoked by alias); 26 Apr 2012 13:54:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 27753 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Apr 2012 13:54:36 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,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; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:54:20 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q3QDsGpq018182 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 26 Apr 2012 09:54:16 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q3QDsFD9025127 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 26 Apr 2012 09:54:15 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: sivachandra@google.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC - doc] Add note about the possibility of symbols getting moved across blocks References: <83bomgfcbt.fsf@gnu.org> <87ipgna94k.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <83y5pjedjp.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:04:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <83y5pjedjp.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed, 25 Apr 2012 23:56:10 +0300") Message-ID: <87397qa9a0.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.95 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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/msg00904.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Eli" == Eli Zaretskii writes: Eli> I meant what should I do or not do as the user of the Python API in Eli> question. Eli> Or maybe I misunderstand what you are saying, sorry. I think the idea is to warn Python developers that they should test their code with future versions if they use this feature. Normally we try to maintain compatibility, even when we've made mistakes. But in this case, we suspect we may make changes and we don't want to promise compatibility; but nor do we want to block this feature until the symbol tables are changed, since that may not happen for some time. I'm not totally wedded to this. Maybe Doug could say more. Tom