Re: [RFA] Re: Python: add field access by name and standard python mapping methods to gdb.Type

Doug Evans
2011-11-04T17:42:14Z

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 8:56 AM, Paul Koning <paulkoning@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Oct 4, 2011, at 11:41 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
>>> From: Paul Koning <paulkoning@comcast.net>
>>> Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 11:29:58 -0400
>>> Cc: Doug Evans <dje@google.com>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>>>
>>>
>>>> For future reference, there is a separate ChangeLog in doc.  Entries for
>>>> documentation have to go there.
>>>
>>> I overlooked that file.  Thanks for the reference.  Should I move the entry there?
>>
>> Yes, please.
>
> Done.
>
>>
>>>> Could you write a NEWS entry for this change?
>>>
>>> How about this?
>>
>> Fine with me, thanks.
>
> Committed.

Ummm, hi.
I know I looked at the patch and approved it myself, but having played
with it for awhile I'm having second thoughts.
And before a release goes out I'd like to get this resolved.
If you want I'll do the work, or at least help however I can.

One way to look at my reasoning is that a type "has a" field list but
it's not the case that a type "is a" field list.
And I'm uncomfortable with len(gdb.parse_and_eval("1").type) == 0.
IOW, len(gdb.Type of "int") is now 0. I think it should flag an exception.

OTOH, adding the new support to the result of gdb.Type.fields() is great.

Anyone object to me changing things and moving the new iterator
support to gdb.Type.fields()?
Or do people disagree with my reasoning?
I haven't looked into what's involved. At this point I just want to
get the user-visible semantics right.