From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26202 invoked by alias); 11 Feb 2009 21:06:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 26193 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Feb 2009 21:06:36 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout2.012.net.il (HELO mtaout2.012.net.il) (84.95.2.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 21:06:27 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.i_mtaout2.012.net.il by i_mtaout2.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) id <0KEX00K006DZD000@i_mtaout2.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 23:06:51 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.229.24.112]) by i_mtaout2.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) with ESMTPA id <0KEX00DGK6NBXSA0@i_mtaout2.012.net.il>; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 23:06:49 +0200 (IST) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 21:06:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: RFC: add ability to "source" Python code In-reply-to: <20090211203921.GC13021@adacore.com> To: Joel Brobecker Cc: tromey@redhat.com, bauerman@br.ibm.com, drow@false.org, pedro@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: References: <200902100000.22671.pedro@codesourcery.com> <200902100235.59897.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20090210034834.GA20077@caradoc.them.org> <1234267091.13871.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20090211060911.GB4225@adacore.com> <20090211203921.GC13021@adacore.com> 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: 2009-02/txt/msg00256.txt.bz2 > Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 12:39:21 -0800 > From: Joel Brobecker > Cc: Tom Tromey , bauerman@br.ibm.com, drow@false.org, > pedro@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > > > I do not like the cookie idea > > > > Considering that this is the only alternative proposed so far that has > > the most chances to be accepted, and that it is 100% backwards > > compatible, perhaps you could reconsider. > > Perhaps, but I believe that it makes the feature much much less useful > that it would be. I think that's a heck of exaggeration. We are talking about adding a single line. > I'd like to be able to grab a Python script, any python script, and > evaluate it in GDB. Doesn't that work with "python FOO" right now? Also, would an arbitrary Python script necessarily do anything useful in GDB? Some of them probably will, but not just any one, I think. > what are the chances of someone naming a GDB script with a .py > extension? No less than the chances of someone grabbing any Python script and evaluating in GDB, I presume.