From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7871 invoked by alias); 14 Aug 2011 22:18:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 7862 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Aug 2011 22:18:45 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-ey0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-ey0-f169.google.com) (209.85.215.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 22:18:31 +0000 Received: by eye22 with SMTP id 22so2934107eye.0 for ; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 15:18:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.14.147.14 with SMTP id s14mr439064eej.120.1313360310316; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 15:18:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.53.11 with HTTP; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 15:18:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20110814171023.19db4f49@ado-gentoo> References: <20110814171023.19db4f49@ado-gentoo> Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 22:18:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Python API - nested pretty printers MI implications From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Oakley Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-08/txt/msg00037.txt.bz2 On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Andrew Oakley wrote: > I've got a patch to allow the Python pretty printer children iterators > to return more pretty printers so they can create "phony groups" a bit > like this: Yay! > As far as I can tell I need to create "fake" varobj structures with no > underlying value or type (because I don't have one). =A0This appears to > already happen and is tested for with CPLUS_FAKE_CHILD, but I'm not > quite sure what that is for. =A0Does this seem like a reasonable thing to > do (after searching around for CPLUS_FAKE_CHILD)? It does seem like a reasonable idea, but watch out for CPLUS_FAKE_CHILD; it may not be a good model. It's used right now for public/protected/private groups, and no one seems to want it there - it might go away at some point. > My other worry is varobj invalidation and update. =A0Am I correct in > thinking that updates can only happen from a "root" varobj? =A0If so it > should be possible to reconstruct the "fake" varobj structures in > varobj_update (I don't think it will be straightforward though). My memory on this is a bit spotty. I think it may be possible to update non-root varobjs, but it's the common case to update the root. That might have been an out-of-tree patch though... > Am I correct in assuming you would want MI to work before accepting > patches? Even if it's not a requirement, I strongly encourage it. --=20 Thanks, Daniel