From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19741 invoked by alias); 20 Oct 2011 15:04:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 19732 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Oct 2011 15:03:59 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 15:03:45 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p9KF3hxj018268 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 20 Oct 2011 11:03:43 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p9KF3hce024350; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 11:03:43 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p9KF3fFT027223; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 11:03:42 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Paul Koning Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Python: fetch value when building gdb.Value object References: <36B29E9D-F2B3-446F-AF8A-97254A3AAEE2@comcast.net> <21467A42-84A3-4DFD-83A9-28FFFB0A5C7F@comcast.net> <2F165381-183F-471F-8F55-457F08E6B008@comcast.net> <92D17899-A614-4333-87BE-E9746DFB8AB8@comcast.net> Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 15:09:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <92D17899-A614-4333-87BE-E9746DFB8AB8@comcast.net> (Paul Koning's message of "Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:56:07 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.90 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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: 2011-10/txt/msg00563.txt.bz2 Tom> Yes, I think so. I think the current approach is going to bite us Tom> later. We already have bugs open about bad memory management using Tom> gdb.Value. Paul> Ok, I will work on that. Thanks. Paul> Then the other part will be a documentation change, to spell out Paul> clearly the fact that operating on a gdb.Value type can raise an Paul> exception at that time. For example, for a Value object v, the Paul> expression "v+1" can result in an exception (unlike what is Paul> usually true for Python variables of most types). Yes, that sounds good. Also, we can expose the laziness directly to Python. I filed a PR for this: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13327 Tom