From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-107402-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 30902 invoked by alias); 20 Nov 2013 00:03:29 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 30893 invoked by uid 89); 20 Nov 2013 00:03:28 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20,RDNS_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-HELO: mail-ee0-f44.google.com
Received: from Unknown (HELO mail-ee0-f44.google.com) (74.125.83.44) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 00:03:27 +0000
Received: by mail-ee0-f44.google.com with SMTP id d51so3652660eek.17        for <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 16:03:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;        d=1e100.net; s=20130820;        h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date         :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;        bh=+bjc4XM32NYRVM2R1wh0FhSH2QSWfD+8wLnsWJK1kbk=;        b=c5c9xoANoYkiRMpbxQQXjp9WsYutl0jDLE1Y8lOL7rVUrvi/kUATh8HnntUB9H3yUF         hX9EQI+84zqcANIETKCkLBesBihrIsBUCmirdDaIKhC1pBUyNVvKturvrAB3ON0qjPco         tavw1/JV83tRr3sCIK1RgJDs5X1zLqaol7qPtCuBc8pBEQGWWmOyPy05Z2/6ajIcL19y         UjSqYjFpB79i9VIFlvoWHK0xr3CVkNab1Yj3MywOQjpG7/r4bJr4KCuohQLtqspOmcwY         6uFNtlnmlh6188fBXPS5OoOoIs8kyVh8lOsvnkgB6vM6omdGn3XulhIveKKj69W0cwco         ebHw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnfNdPblrC1NQWKRVhqSRE8/V/kNnmrIobhtwXReiM+xABY8a1zClq2DaiLYcqYEkZrLUaAUihnNS9uxV6LPf6Fp4s6qss0iOX/c+kRJ6IXJqqE0TCrUXvKiUWUCGRBhd188icU2pq9Iw936ibncLEiDW3+8XVowlejcGbfrygwrzOh4aTYXgjr6mOB9YnMm+8rtcMdpwoWAzoBR3nXos02ufx8PQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.14.219.4 with SMTP id l4mr89442eep.94.1384905798409; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 16:03:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.14.151.72 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 16:03:18 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CADPb22S+g2o7VpxVEPQco8owoxxjECePtYJt=Oh2PNVf4sseEA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGyQ6gyKTCdcjMcbfnc4zV3+yEt9tCTJzS8eW92dQrQzikRaTQ@mail.gmail.com>	<CAGyQ6gxzG8vuPyFKHpacHS7W7jMEReidWDBkNJjywOXADXgVnw@mail.gmail.com>	<87r4hefx59.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>	<CAGyQ6gw_-MOu4Y9D+mUf-A55_Ms+j9JAmM9dU0y8PdJw73EkNw@mail.gmail.com>	<871u995pbt.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>	<CAGyQ6gywGMDwmm9fHpPGhwE9vrki1VE8uDM2hRFEAvCZKaTyJg@mail.gmail.com>	<87ehaq5nkr.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>	<CAGyQ6gwT5+Jmu4bqgakjCWmmZtWjbd83n0qq=B9ctfWjv7oS_w@mail.gmail.com>	<87txfds4vf.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>	<CAGyQ6gzaht0KYTxdFFZDeAo5hxesOmjCAiVomX8d_eV4XGK_CQ@mail.gmail.com>	<CADPb22TgkC-KBhAoYvNBueOKrHAFWwvd9TgYaQ2=Oq5qsFoZrA@mail.gmail.com>	<CAGyQ6gwtj3TEazHJYvVNwbZnN3hh6ZJD_dcG4spZ56hkXaP2ag@mail.gmail.com>	<CADPb22S+g2o7VpxVEPQco8owoxxjECePtYJt=Oh2PNVf4sseEA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 00:39:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAGyQ6gxHMV6a7kbxu9HCJOgs-kGAGtkvMV6w7fn-SU412sfU3g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Debug Methods in GDB Python
From: Siva Chandra <sivachandra@google.com>
To: Doug Evans <dje@google.com>
Cc: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>, gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg00569.txt.bz2

I am working the new patch sets that would address most of your
comments. For one or two, I will probably ask more questions when I
post the patches. But I want to respond to one comment now.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Doug Evans <dje@google.com> wrote:
> For matching on the method, I would just use a string comparison.
> Again, this is for the simple version.  IIUC the API allows for more
> complex mechanisms, but for the start I'd say start small with
> something simple.
> [I can imagine an issue arising with operators, e.g., "operator ()" vs
> "operator()" or some such.  Is handling that with a regexp the best
> way to go?  Dunno.]

For things "operator ()" vs "operator()", I think GDB handles that
before looking up the method. But otherwise, a simple name match can
have problems with template methods as the template argument could be
anything. I am working on setting up tests which illustrate debug
methods for template classes with template methods.