Re: [RFC] Debug Methods in GDB Python

[Siva Chandra <sivachandra@google.com>]

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Doug Evans <dje@google.com> wrote:
> It would be good to provide enable/disable/info support akin the the
> python pretty-printers.

Yes. I am planning to bring them in the next version of the patches.

> The original pretty-printers used regexps for matching but that was
> IIUC found to be excessively general.
> We might want to avoid them in the basic versions of debug methods.

Do you have an alternate approach in mind?

> I could be wrong but it seemed like errors were handled differently
> than in the pretty-printers.
> The inconsistency doesn't feel warranted.

Yes, there is a difference.

> IIRC the "ext_lang" stuff was going to be deleted, right?

I am not sure. Tom had a comment long time back on this, but his
latest review said that his comments on this might be irrelevant now.
I have renamed some of the pieces related to this in my last patch. Do
you have any specific comments?

> What are debug method groups for?

They are for disabling and enabling a group of debug methods. For
example, they could be used for debugging the debug methods themselves
or writing tests for them: You can disable a group at once instead of
disabling individually.

> One thought I had, and this is mostly for discussion's sake,
> is why stop at providing support for user-defined methods (incl. operators)?
> Why not allow anything that might be "hand called" to be implemented in Python?

I think that could be a fairly straightforward extension. Do you want
it to be done together with this work?

> [One way of implementing user-defined methods/operators was to
> translate, e.g. my_stl_vector[3], into a "pseudo- hand call",
> and then call into Python at the point where we would have hand-called
> the inferior instead.]

IIRC, you had suggested similar ideas earlier as well. However, I have
not gone that route because I thought debug methods/functions should
go through the method/function matching infrastructure. Am I missing
something here?