From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16456 invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2014 15:34:22 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 16395 invoked by uid 89); 24 Oct 2014 15:34:21 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: e06smtp16.uk.ibm.com Received: from e06smtp16.uk.ibm.com (HELO e06smtp16.uk.ibm.com) (195.75.94.112) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 15:34:20 +0000 Received: from /spool/local by e06smtp16.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 16:34:17 +0100 Received: from d06dlp02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.20.14) by e06smtp16.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.146) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 16:34:15 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay12.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.197]) by d06dlp02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84BD02190041 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 16:33:50 +0100 (BST) Received: from d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.228]) by b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id s9OFYElF7471374 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 15:34:14 GMT Received: from d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id s9OFYC11021399 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 09:34:13 -0600 Received: from tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com (tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com [9.152.85.9]) by d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVin) with SMTP id s9OFYB0N021380; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 09:34:11 -0600 Message-Id: <201410241534.s9OFYB0N021380@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> Received: by tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 24 Oct 2014 17:34:11 +0200 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Python API: Add gdb.is_in_prologue and gdb.is_in_epilogue. To: palves@redhat.com (Pedro Alves) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 15:34:00 -0000 From: "Ulrich Weigand" Cc: dje@google.com (Doug Evans), martin.galvan@tallertechnologies.com (Martin Galvan), gdb-patches@sourceware.org (gdb-patches), eliz@gnu.org (Eli Zaretskii) In-Reply-To: <544A6A06.3030409@redhat.com> from "Pedro Alves" at Oct 24, 2014 04:02:30 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 14102415-0025-0000-0000-0000020E69C2 X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg00650.txt.bz2 Pedro Alves wrote: > On 10/24/2014 05:57 AM, Doug Evans wrote: > > If one went that route then I wonder whether we need two API functions. > > [If we did go with only one function I'd choose a different name than > > foo_destroyed of course.] > > Do you have a better suggestion for the gdbarch hook? I think we > should just rename it for good, avoiding these confusions further. So if the only use of this interface is to check whether the result of some other interface (I assume something like Frame.read_var ?) is reliable, then I guess we might consider moving the check actually into that other interface. E.g. have Frame.read_var itself check in_epilogue and return an unavailable or optimized-out value if the value would be unreliable otherwise. This might in the end even push the check into the GDB core itself, so that we might no longer need the explicit checks in breakpoint.c. Not sure if that it feasible ... Bye, Ulrich -- Dr. Ulrich Weigand GNU/Linux compilers and toolchain Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com