From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id SMBVAYjYMWLPKgAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2022 08:31:04 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 029EA1F3CC; Wed, 16 Mar 2022 08:31:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,RDNS_DYNAMIC, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87E631EDF0 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2022 08:31:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41E00386EC13 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2022 12:31:03 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 41E00386EC13 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1647433863; bh=D7na2poXNHsqJglkjJGF5v9VAd8paIhz4l86oqnJ7WA=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=LV9kzJD3l5nkikQTIy6OyAhQHvYAMNWsiXYLJ7bxfm/EaxI57EhNHfoKNJTOPqnO0 q4lddZ9rwnVF9Oiqu1JwXrXT6w0ixp5UJfCNgCVg1BHz23f5SQt3K4njtedPmucwq2 EUDYNrnRrEFCeSP/Jrho8rEj6FXhyS6kH/xdXu3I= Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (smtp.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.11]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00B373843858 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2022 12:29:42 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 00B373843858 Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 22GCTYm5022503 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 16 Mar 2022 08:29:39 -0400 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp.polymtl.ca 22GCTYm5022503 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (192-222-157-6.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.157.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0D3F91EDF0; Wed, 16 Mar 2022 08:29:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2022 08:29:33 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.1 Subject: Re: [PATCHv5] gdb/python/mi: create MI commands using python Content-Language: en-US To: Andrew Burgess , Joel Brobecker via Gdb-patches References: <20220224103749.1719761-1-aburgess@redhat.com> <20220228164801.1276366-1-aburgess@redhat.com> <87pmmovczh.fsf@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <87pmmovczh.fsf@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Poly-FromMTA: (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) at Wed, 16 Mar 2022 12:29:34 +0000 X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Simon Marchi Cc: Jan Vrany , Joel Brobecker Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On 2022-03-14 10:13, Andrew Burgess via Gdb-patches wrote: > Joel Brobecker via Gdb-patches writes: > >> Hi Andrew, >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 04:48:01PM +0000, Andrew Burgess via Gdb-patches wrote: >>> In v5: >>> >>> - variable names within the mi output (from Python) can now contain >>> the '-' character, >>> >>> - the example in the docs has been updated to remove the reference >>> to an outdated feature (dropped in an earlier version, but the >>> example got left in by mistake), >>> >>> - updated the call to gdbpy_enter to pass no arguments, >>> >>> - rebased to latest upstream master. >> >> Now that Tom as confirmed all his comments are approved, can we >> push the patch to master? > > I had been waiting to see if Simon wanted to give any feedback, as he > commented on the earlier iterations. > > But, since his last round of feedback has been addressed, and was pretty > minor, I've gone ahead and pushed this patch now. > > If anything else comes up, then I am, of course, happy to address that > in a follow up patch. Sorry for not being more responsive. I think you did the right thing indeed. Simon