From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11239 invoked by alias); 14 Dec 2010 17:46:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 11161 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Dec 2010 17:46:08 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 17:46:04 +0000 Received: (qmail 4111 invoked from network); 14 Dec 2010 17:46:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 14 Dec 2010 17:46:02 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] Add an evaluation function hook to Python breakpoints. Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 17:46:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.33-29-realtime; KDE/4.4.5; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Doug Evans , pmuldoon@redhat.com References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201012141746.00610.pedro@codesourcery.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: 2010-12/txt/msg00249.txt.bz2 On Monday 13 December 2010 20:45:38, Doug Evans wrote: > Collecting data in the "evaluate" function feels too hacky for > something we explicitly tell users is the published way to do this > kind of thing. FWIW, I think that's a common idiom, and I'm cool with it. I recently saw a presentation of a proprietary (quite featureful) debugger where the equivalent callback was shown as a means of collecting data as well ("it just always returns FALSE, thus never causes a stop", or some such). -- Pedro Alves