From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6560 invoked by alias); 7 Feb 2013 16:42:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 6491 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Feb 2013 16:42:33 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_SPAMHAUS_DROP,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS 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, 07 Feb 2013 16:42:26 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r17GgOFZ012715 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 7 Feb 2013 11:42:25 -0500 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r17GgNiD025609 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 7 Feb 2013 11:42:24 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Siva Chandra Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC - Python Scripting] New method gdb.Architecture.disassemble References: <87y5f1w6xc.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 16:42:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Siva Chandra's message of "Thu, 7 Feb 2013 06:14:17 -0800") Message-ID: <87halovzww.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2.92 (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: 2013-02/txt/msg00182.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Siva" == Siva Chandra writes: Siva> Based on a comment in this thread, Siva> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2012-11/msg00052.html, I gather Siva> that architecture could change between frames. Hence, would it not be Siva> more appropriate to have this method on gdb.Architecture? Ok. Siva> The only reason I made it global is because there is no way currently Siva> to free up a ui_out object from outside of ui-out.c. Do you think it Siva> is OK to add a field ui_out_destroy_ftype to struct ui_out_impl? If Siva> yes, then I think we can first add the support for this 'virtual Siva> destructor' in a separate patch. I think this would be much nicer, thanks. Tom