From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26940 invoked by alias); 29 May 2010 00:41:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 26930 invoked by uid 22791); 29 May 2010 00:41:54 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.44.51) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 29 May 2010 00:41:45 +0000 Received: from kpbe17.cbf.corp.google.com (kpbe17.cbf.corp.google.com [172.25.105.81]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o4T0fhNm024373 for ; Fri, 28 May 2010 17:41:43 -0700 Received: from pxi18 (pxi18.prod.google.com [10.243.27.18]) by kpbe17.cbf.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o4T0fgPN013077 for ; Fri, 28 May 2010 17:41:42 -0700 Received: by pxi18 with SMTP id 18so820441pxi.33 for ; Fri, 28 May 2010 17:41:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.141.90.20 with SMTP id s20mr822506rvl.190.1275093701733; Fri, 28 May 2010 17:41:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.255.14 with HTTP; Fri, 28 May 2010 17:41:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20100528160818.GN3019@adacore.com> References: <1274918921-23200-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <1274918921-23200-2-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <20100528160818.GN3019@adacore.com> Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 17:10:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFA/python:1/2] Add support for --with-pythondir. From: Doug Evans To: Joel Brobecker Cc: tromey@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-System-Of-Record: true X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2010-05/txt/msg00692.txt.bz2 On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Joel Brobecker wrote: > I wasn't personally thinking about .so modules for GDB. Do you have > any example in mind where it would be more useful for a user to use > a .so rather than a .py? No example. I just want us to have thought about it (since now seems like the right time). And I don't have a strong opinion on any particular solution. I do think that we should allow for the possibility of having gdb python modules implemented as .so's. >> Also, do we want to name this --with-gdb-pythondir? [and do we want to >> rename --with-python to --with-gdb-python?] > > I think that --with-python is a fine name, although now that I think > of it, it might have been more consistent to name it with-python-prefix. > I don't think that we should name it with a "gdb" in it, because this > is not GDB's python library, but rather the prefix where python is > installed. For reference sake, --with-python-prefix is a worse name now. Setting aside --with-python=yes, the preferred parameter is the name or path of the python binary. We fetch the needed parameters via distutils of that binary. [Setting aside cross-compilation.]