From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17916 invoked by alias); 11 Nov 2013 17:20:58 -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 17895 invoked by uid 89); 11 Nov 2013 17:20:57 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20,RDNS_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from Unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 17:20:28 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rABHKCpO013725 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 11 Nov 2013 12:20:15 -0500 Received: from barimba (ovpn-113-94.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.94]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rABHK80G021542 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 11 Nov 2013 12:20:11 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Doug Evans Cc: Stan Shebs , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Publishing binary interfaces [was Re: [PATCH] Move "types deeply equal" code from py-type.c to gdbtypes.c] References: <527AB482.80600@earthlink.net> Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 18:59:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Doug Evans's message of "Wed, 06 Nov 2013 23:22:30 -0800") Message-ID: <87fvr2kg8o.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: 2013-11/txt/msg00297.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Doug" == Doug Evans writes: Doug> Some people IIRC were *profoundly* against publishing binary interfaces. Not sure if you are referring to me. If so, then I think you've misunderstood me. This is understandable given the deficiencies of irc. If not, I suppose whoever it is can speak for themselves. Doug> Is the community changing it's mind on binary interfaces? I'm ok with it in principle, but the details matter. It's hard to discuss this in the abstract. For example, there are many parts of gdb that I think are plainly unsuitable for ABI promises. So if your plan involves fixing the ABI, then I will be against it. I'm also skeptical of this on doability grounds. It's harder to publish a library than a program; and my view is we barely have enough developer time to address the glaring internal deficiencies in gdb, let alone make it all of "publishable API" quality. That said, I'm happy to note that my skepticism isn't a determinant of whether it will succeed or fail. I'll help if I can. I think if you really want to pursue this, you ought to come up with a plan covering what you intend to do, how you intend to do it, what the results will look like, how the API will be managed, what additional constraints this will place on gdb development, etc. This will clarify whether it is something I would support. Doug> Do people actually envision dlopen'ing GDB's Python extension? If there is some concrete benefit. Tom