From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5424 invoked by alias); 20 Jul 2007 17:37:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 5414 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Jul 2007 17:37:06 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Jul 2007 17:37:04 +0000 Received: (qmail 4071 invoked from network); 20 Jul 2007 17:37:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (jimb@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 20 Jul 2007 17:37:02 -0000 To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Allow printing of Guile values References: <87ir8f2lrh.fsf@chbouib.org> <20070720152952.GB9407@caradoc.them.org> <87zm1ryspn.fsf@chbouib.org> From: Jim Blandy Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 18:22:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <87zm1ryspn.fsf@chbouib.org> (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s'?= =?utf-8?Q?s?= message of "Fri, 20 Jul 2007 17:56:20 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: 2007-07/txt/msg00239.txt.bz2 ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > >> Unfortunately, Guile support has been removed from GDB, so this patch >> no longer applies. > > Hmm, that was against GDB 6.6. > > It's unfortunate that support has been removed without leaving Guile > folks an opportunity to do something about it. > > Is there a chance that minimal support could be reinstated? Definitely. Part of the rationale for deleting it was, "Oh, if someone shows up to keep it alive, we've still got it in CVS." I'll be happy to review changes. The key is that someone make themselves available to keep it working. > It's true that most of the `scm-' files in 6.6 are unfinished, > outdated, or complex (they actually re-implement parts of Guile, > which is admittedly overkill and certainly hard to maintain). By > "minimal support", I mean that we'd arrange to move most support > routines in Guile, and leave (almost) maintenance-free code in GDB. A debugger should be able to inspect the state of programs in serious disarray, so there's an argument against relying too much on invoking functions in Guile. Certainly, though, the best code would draw a clear distinction between scm-lang.c and scm-lang-guile.c.