From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3919 invoked by alias); 28 Aug 2013 15:54:59 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 3910 invoked by uid 89); 28 Aug 2013 15:54:59 -0000 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 15:54:59 +0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com 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 r7SFsuhZ013237 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 11:54:56 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn-113-142.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.142]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r7SFstqV023190 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 28 Aug 2013 11:54:56 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Phil Muldoon Cc: "gdb-patches\@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [patch] [python] PR python/15461 (gate architecture calls) References: <521DE761.6010403@redhat.com> <87k3j5x3yq.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <521E1419.5040404@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 15:54:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <521E1419.5040404@redhat.com> (Phil Muldoon's message of "Wed, 28 Aug 2013 16:15:37 +0100") Message-ID: <87eh9dx12o.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2013-08/txt/msg00835.txt.bz2 Phil> I don't disagree on the efficiency argument, but my goal here was to Phil> follow the pattern that other objects use to determine validity of the Phil> underlying GDB data. To bring a sense of uniformity to how we do Phil> things in Python. So how we check a gdb.Frame's, et al, validity, the Phil> pattern will be the same, as far as possible, for other objects. Ok. If you look at other ones, they set the Python exception. At least that is true for py-block.c (twice), py-inferior.c, py-inthread.c, py-symbol.c, py-symtab.c (twice), etc. FWIW I don't mind inconsistency in these little details. What matters is the context in which the macro is most useful. Tom