Python not optional?

Python not optional?

[Mark Kettenis]

I always assumed that the Python scripting support would be optional.
I think that's what we agreed on when the idea to use Python as a
scripting language was first circulated.  So I was a bit disappointed
when GDB no longer built on my systems.  Luckily this isn't too
difficult to fix; the attached rough diff does the job, but might need
a bit of cleanup.


Index: cli/cli-script.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/cli/cli-script.c,v
retrieving revision 1.47
diff -u -p -r1.47 cli-script.c
--- cli/cli-script.c	16 Aug 2008 20:36:29 -0000	1.47
+++ cli/cli-script.c	20 Aug 2008 14:24:40 -0000
@@ -34,7 +34,9 @@
 #include "cli/cli-script.h"
 #include "gdb_assert.h"
 
+#ifdef HAVE_PYTHON
 #include "python/python.h"
+#endif
 
 /* Prototypes for local functions */
 
@@ -543,12 +545,14 @@ execute_control_command (struct command_
 	ret = commands_from_control_command (new_line, cmd);
 	break;
       }
+#ifdef HAVE_PYTHON
     case python_control:
       {
 	eval_python_from_control_command (cmd);
 	ret = simple_control;
 	break;
       }
+#endif
 
     default:
       warning (_("Invalid control type in canned commands structure."));

Re: Python not optional?

[Tom Tromey]

>>>>> "Mark" == Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl> writes:

Mark> I always assumed that the Python scripting support would be optional.

It is supposed to be.

Mark>   Luckily this isn't too difficult to fix; the attached rough
Mark> diff does the job, but might need a bit of cleanup.

I will send a different patch shortly.

It would be helpful if you could mention the errors you saw.

Tom

Re: Python not optional?

[Mark Kettenis]

> From: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
> Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 08:37:10 -0600
> 
> >>>>> "Mark" == Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl> writes:
> 
> Mark> I always assumed that the Python scripting support would be optional.
> 
> It is supposed to be.
> 
> Mark>   Luckily this isn't too difficult to fix; the attached rough
> Mark> diff does the job, but might need a bit of cleanup.
> 
> I will send a different patch shortly.
> 
> It would be helpful if you could mention the errors you saw.

Oops, sorry.  It seems I didn't check out the new python subdirectory.
All's fine now.