From: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
To: Siva Chandra <sivachandra@google.com>
Cc: gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Debug Methods in GDB Python
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 20:47:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87ehaq5nkr.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGyQ6gywGMDwmm9fHpPGhwE9vrki1VE8uDM2hRFEAvCZKaTyJg@mail.gmail.com> (Siva Chandra's message of "Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:59:44 -0700")
>>>>> "Siva" == Siva Chandra <sivachandra@google.com> writes:
Siva> Took me longer than I had expected I but could spend some time last
Siva> couple of weeks and address all of Tom's comments from last time. Like
Siva> before, I do not have docs or tests as the Python side API is largely
Siva> un-reviewed I guess. However, I have put in code comments in the
Siva> latest version. The patch is attached and the ChangeLog is as below:
Thanks.
I appreciate that you don't want to write all the docs and tests for a
moving target. On the other hand, it's harder to review a patch that
doesn't have these.
A compromise would be if you wrote just the docs describing how it
works, say the Python API. Then we could discuss this; and once ok, the
implementation would follow.
But, that is for future changes. For this one, I think we're in general
agreement about the exposed API, and so polishing is a vital component.
Siva> +/* Registers an extension language with GDB. */
Siva> +
Siva> +void
Siva> +register_ext_lang (struct ext_lang *lang)
Siva> +{
Siva> + if (ext_lang_vec == NULL)
Siva> + ext_lang_vec = VEC_alloc (ext_lang_p, 1);
Siva> +
Siva> + VEC_safe_push (ext_lang_p, ext_lang_vec, lang);
The "extension language" code here seems like a lot of work for no
real benefit.
It's fine for the functions themselves, since we'd like to keep the API
to the Python layer reasonably thin. But for get_matching_ext_methods,
e.g., it is simple to follow the existing pattern: declare a function in
python.h and provide both with- and without-Python implementations.
Siva> +struct ext_lang
Siva> + {
Siva> + clone_ext_obj_ftype *clone_ext_object;
Siva> + free_ext_obj_ftype *free_ext_obj;
Siva> + get_matching_ext_methods_ftype *get_matching_ext_methods;
Siva> + get_ext_fn_argtypes_ftype *get_ext_fn_argtypes;
Siva> + invoke_method_ftype *invoke_method;
Siva> + };
I think this struct should be given a different name.
Typical in gdb is "ops".
Siva> +extern struct ext_fn_descriptor *new_ext_function (struct ext_lang *lang,
Siva> + int is_method,
Siva> + void *ext_obj);
It seems like 'lang' should be const here.
Siva> + and the method name. It next get the argument types of these methods via
s/get/gets/
Siva> + for old_method in existing_method_list:
Siva> + objfile.debug_methods.remove(old_method)
Siva> + objfile.debug_methods.extend(debug_methods)
I notice this patch adds "debug_methods" to the objfile but not the
program space. Updating the latter, and also providing a global
debug_methods, is more in line with the other hooks we provide.
Siva> +py_free_ext_object (void *ext_object)
Siva> +{
Siva> + struct py_ext_object *o = (struct py_ext_object *) ext_object;
You don't need casts to or from "void *".
Siva> + enabled = PyObject_IsTrue (enabled_field);
Siva> + if (enabled == -1)
Siva> + {
Siva> + PyErr_Clear ();
Siva> + do_cleanups (cleanups);
Silently ignoring errors doesn't seem right.
There are a few instances of this.
I'm not really sure about the error-handling strategy in this function.
Siva> +static VEC (ext_fn_descriptor_p) *
Siva> +py_debugmethod_name_match (struct type *obj_type, const char *method_name)
[...]
Siva> + if (method_vec == NULL)
Siva> + method_vec = VEC_alloc (ext_fn_descriptor_p, 1);
You don't need to explicitly allocate a vec like this.
VEC_safe_push handles it.
Siva> + self->debug_methods = PyList_New (0);
Siva> + if (!self->debug_methods)
Now we write "== NULL".
Siva> + object->debug_methods = PyList_New (0);
Siva> + if (!object->debug_methods)
Ditto.
Siva> +int gdbpy_initialize_debugmethods (void)
Siva> + CPYCHECKER_NEGATIVE_RESULT_SETS_EXCEPTION;
I'm curious if you ran this through the checker.
It isn't a requirement; the checker gives enough false reports that it
is a bit of a pain.
Tom
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-07-22 20:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-01-07 21:22 Siva Chandra
2013-01-29 1:51 ` Siva Chandra
2013-02-25 23:02 ` Siva Chandra
2013-05-10 19:33 ` Tom Tromey
2013-05-10 19:55 ` Siva Chandra
2013-05-14 19:33 ` Tom Tromey
2013-06-17 19:10 ` Siva Chandra
2013-07-22 20:47 ` Tom Tromey [this message]
2013-11-12 2:56 ` Siva Chandra
2013-11-15 22:28 ` Tom Tromey
2013-11-16 0:05 ` Siva Chandra
2013-11-16 0:54 ` Doug Evans
2013-11-16 1:03 ` Siva Chandra
2013-11-16 2:48 ` Siva Chandra
2013-11-20 0:03 ` Doug Evans
2013-11-19 23:52 ` Doug Evans
2013-11-20 0:39 ` Siva Chandra
2013-11-20 2:48 ` Doug Evans
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87ehaq5nkr.fsf@fleche.redhat.com \
--to=tromey@redhat.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=sivachandra@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox