public inbox for gdb-patches@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, pmuldoon@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [patch] Add an evaluation function hook to Python breakpoints.
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 14:33:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <201012131433.44512.pedro@codesourcery.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m38vztlr2r.fsf@redhat.com>

On Monday 13 December 2010 13:50:36, Phil Muldoon wrote:

> +      /* Evaluate Python breakpoints that have an "evaluate"
> +        function implemented.  */
> +#if HAVE_PYTHON
> +      if (b->py_bp_object)
> +       {
> +         struct cleanup *cleanup = ensure_python_env (get_current_arch (),
> +                                                      current_language);
> +         PyObject *gdbpy_bp_eval = PyString_FromString ("evaluate");
> +         PyObject *py_bp = (PyObject *) b->py_bp_object;
> +
> +         if (PyObject_HasAttr (py_bp, gdbpy_bp_eval))
> +           {
> +             PyObject *result = PyObject_CallMethodObjArgs (py_bp,
> +                                                            gdbpy_bp_eval,
> +                                                            NULL);
> +
> +             if (result)
> +               {
> +                 int evaluate = PyObject_IsTrue (result);
> +
> +                 if (evaluate == -1)
> +                   gdbpy_print_stack ();
> +
> +                 /* If the evaluate function returns False that means the
> +                    Python breakpoint wants GDB to continue.  */
> +                 if (!evaluate)
> +                   bs->stop = 0;
> +               }
> +             else
> +               gdbpy_print_stack ();
> +           }
> +         do_cleanups (cleanup);
> +       }
> +#endif
> +

Can you factor out the PyObject manipulations and the actual evaluation
of the condition to pythong/py-breakpoint.c?  Say, to a
new "py_breakpoint_evaluate (struct breakpoint_object *, ...)" function.
The driving idea being to get rid of the need to now include
python-internal.h.

My first reaction was 'why not call the field "condition"?  "evaluate"
sounds like it's about watchpoint evaluation or some such to me.  Point
being, that there are several different things that are evaluated, and
so it kind of sounds ambiguous.  OTOH, there's chance of confusion with
the condition expression set with the "condition" command.  Is that one
exposed to python?  It may be worth it to think a bit about that, so to
make sure the docs and api doesn't end up confusing when you end up
exposing that condition too.  I'm okay with whatever you guys come up
with, just pointing it out.

-- 
Pedro Alves

  parent reply	other threads:[~2010-12-13 14:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-12-13 13:50 Phil Muldoon
2010-12-13 14:19 ` Eli Zaretskii
2010-12-13 14:47   ` Phil Muldoon
2010-12-13 15:07     ` Eli Zaretskii
2010-12-13 17:21       ` Phil Muldoon
2010-12-13 17:46         ` Eli Zaretskii
2010-12-13 14:33 ` Pedro Alves [this message]
2010-12-13 14:56   ` Phil Muldoon
2010-12-13 15:07     ` Pedro Alves
2010-12-13 20:45 ` Doug Evans
2010-12-13 21:02   ` Phil Muldoon
2010-12-14  3:31     ` Doug Evans
2010-12-14 17:18       ` Phil Muldoon
2010-12-14 17:28   ` Tom Tromey
2010-12-14 19:51     ` Phil Muldoon
2010-12-14 20:00       ` Phil Muldoon
2010-12-15 15:34     ` Phil Muldoon
2010-12-15 20:51       ` Tom Tromey
2011-01-27 12:44         ` Phil Muldoon
     [not found]           ` <AANLkTimi6ugruNAqUGHni8Kvkz+B5-s2aAkEoTY2D_gT@mail.gmail.com>
2011-01-27 21:40             ` Phil Muldoon
2011-01-28 10:42           ` Tom Tromey
2010-12-15 16:21     ` Doug Evans
2010-12-15 20:57       ` Tom Tromey
2010-12-21 17:33         ` Doug Evans
2010-12-21 20:02           ` Tom Tromey
2010-12-22 16:34             ` Doug Evans
2010-12-22 17:35               ` Tom Tromey
2010-12-28  5:53                 ` Doug Evans
2011-01-05 18:35                   ` Tom Tromey
2011-01-05 20:23                     ` Phil Muldoon
2011-01-09 20:32                       ` Doug Evans
2010-12-14 17:46   ` Pedro Alves
2010-12-14 16:35 ` Tom Tromey
2010-12-14 17:02   ` Phil Muldoon
2010-12-14 17:48     ` Tom Tromey
2010-12-14 16:42 ` Tom Tromey

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=201012131433.44512.pedro@codesourcery.com \
    --to=pedro@codesourcery.com \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
    --cc=pmuldoon@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).