From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5237 invoked by alias); 24 Apr 2012 07:10:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 5177 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Apr 2012 07:10:49 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-qa0-f48.google.com (HELO mail-qa0-f48.google.com) (209.85.216.48) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 07:10:36 +0000 Received: by qam2 with SMTP id 2so2277411qam.0 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 00:10:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-system-of-record :x-gm-message-state; bh=6h4EIoS95hdszRoevrvtIWYsON7IKYZCPe9T1f84R7Y=; b=kG+Fbz4QJxEFU05A51dleUk8lPhlSEV21KPyTqORjpurpA/J+nm4GygXBUBqCCzn/Y Su6g6CNp9MckM6UAcFBHF2nJeSFRLzBpckKhHZiPUBLmQMhkC1nfrNTqgUGgP1afSWUt 5FhbIJkqikvNuU3qwrj3MTAQoNNGavYZKy9fQSU8zYHshtJVEfEd6o2f2nUyIJquIMYz JoJn1hAjVi5AlrPlIIdSZJwJjuankLi1ijEcDkUQXXnFISV9o+n38sLQrKdUtEYrCZkm 6fyJAIDkn+eE+fY3alepMRRvdXWVhitl+F18ozHYEn4zfZIUJ2yb7OdHDnFgffZHovsQ rvZQ== Received: by 10.224.220.142 with SMTP id hy14mr14287857qab.71.1335251435374; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 00:10:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.220.142 with SMTP id hy14mr14287847qab.71.1335251435296; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 00:10:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.215.132 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 00:10:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <83vckqfpzb.fsf@gnu.org> References: <831unms3jy.fsf@gnu.org> <4F8F187D.3050402@redhat.com> <878vhsojgd.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <87sjfyi5rj.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <87lilmh9jf.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <4F95595A.8080106@redhat.com> <83y5pmft8k.fsf@gnu.org> <4F95630D.1000202@redhat.com> <83vckqfpzb.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:15:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC - Python scripting] New methods Symtab.global_block and Symtab.static_block (docs included) From: Siva Chandra To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Phil Muldoon , tromey@redhat.com, dje@google.com, ratmice@gmail.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-System-Of-Record: true X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnz4Fr1Cpyw5AZdMEZVss0XImNUzlTh7yDglIJXaM+UdQpphSa4YdzaXf8e+jQURYStkWXvx1M7HItk9x6Rkjc0B92PHQJd/t5UT2BVJMt8vdd7ybGVVogXIdWJgBHhLzhz/7a4VArBT/MnXemXSS05B55N8Q== 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: 2012-04/txt/msg00768.txt.bz2 On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 8:35 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > With that I agree. =A0Saying such things in a manual is never a good > idea, unless we also describe in detail what exactly can go wrong, how > to detect that, and how to work around. So, can I go ahead and commit after removing the 'controversial' part from the doc? I can add descriptions about what global and static blocks are under "Blocks In Python" (there are xrefs from Symtab.*_block to "Blocks In Python" now) as a different patch. (?) Thanks, Siva Chandra