Re: [RFA] iRe: [RFC][patch 1/9] initial Python support

Daniel Jacobowitz
2008-07-19T21:13:04Z

On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 04:36:47PM -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> > Can we call it python-utils.c or something else, instead? IMO having
> > different naming for the source file and object is very confusing.
>
> Actually I prefer to keep it this way. I am following the existing
> convention used to build other GDB components which live in their own
> subdirectories (cli/, mi/ and tui/).
>
> Since by the end of this patch series there will be 13 Python-related .c
> and .h files, I prefer to put them in their own subdirectory. IMHO having a
> flat source tree, with all source files lumped together, is more confusing
> than an object file named differently (but not much) than its source file.

That's not what I meant. Leaving it in python/ is fine. But call it
python/python-utils.c. All the cli/ sources are prefixed, ditto the
mi/ sources.

> Perhaps get the python-config output and filter out options from a
> blacklist?

Use your hardcoded options, but check using autoconf that they're
valid for the current compiler. IIRC we do something similar for
warning flags already.
> > If the list of python configuration variables grows, this will get out
> > of hand; I suggest sharing the init code regardless of HAVE_PYTHON.
>
> You mean having #ifdefs inside _initialize_python itself?

Right.

--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery