From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Phil Muldoon <pmuldoon@redhat.com>
Cc: jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] compile: New 'compile print'
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 09:08:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <83a8yyn6yn.fsf@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55150D18.6020308@redhat.com>
> Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 07:56:08 +0000
> From: Phil Muldoon <pmuldoon@redhat.com>
> CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>
> On 27/03/15 07:41, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >> Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 08:33:33 +0100
> >> From: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
> >> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, pmuldoon@redhat.com
> >>
> >> On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 08:18:43 +0100, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >>> I suggest a different name for this command. Unfortunately, "eval" is
> >>> already taken, but perhaps "parse" or "parse-eval"? Or maybe a new
> >>> switch to "print"? "compile print" sounds awkward and unintuitive to
> >>> me.
> >> FYI there is already "compile code" and "compile file".
> > Yes, I know. But this command is different AFAIU: it doesn't compile
> > any code at all. So prefixing it with "compile" doesn't sound right
> > to me.
> It does. It repackages the expression typed by the user into compilable form (with a scope, various bits of stack mapping, address translation, etc), send it to the compiler plugin that compiles it. GDB then runs the code in the inferior and captures the evaluated output and type and prints it.
You are talking about implementation, while I'm talking about the
user's perspective. From the user's POV, no code was compiled and
run.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-03-27 9:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-03-26 20:57 [PATCH 1/4] Code cleanup: Make parts of print_command_1 public Jan Kratochvil
2015-03-26 20:57 ` [PATCH 2/4] compile: Add new field scope_data Jan Kratochvil
2015-04-06 17:28 ` obsolete: " Jan Kratochvil
2015-03-26 20:57 ` [PATCH 3/4] compile: Constify some parameters Jan Kratochvil
2015-04-06 17:28 ` obsolete: " Jan Kratochvil
2015-03-26 20:58 ` [PATCH 4/4] compile: New 'compile print' Jan Kratochvil
2015-03-26 20:59 ` Jan Kratochvil
2015-03-27 7:18 ` Eli Zaretskii
2015-03-27 7:33 ` Jan Kratochvil
2015-03-27 7:41 ` Eli Zaretskii
2015-03-27 7:56 ` Phil Muldoon
2015-03-27 9:08 ` Eli Zaretskii [this message]
2015-03-27 9:10 ` Eli Zaretskii
2015-03-27 9:16 ` Jan Kratochvil
2015-03-27 9:56 ` Eli Zaretskii
2015-03-27 10:11 ` Jan Kratochvil
2015-03-27 10:20 ` Phil Muldoon
2015-03-27 13:09 ` Eli Zaretskii
2015-03-27 10:24 ` Jan Kratochvil
2015-03-27 13:12 ` Eli Zaretskii
2015-04-05 17:01 ` cancel: " Jan Kratochvil
2015-04-06 17:29 ` obsolete: " Jan Kratochvil
2015-03-27 20:06 ` [PATCH 1/4] v2: Code cleanup: Make parts of print_command_1 public Jan Kratochvil
2015-04-06 17:27 ` obsolete: " Jan Kratochvil
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=83a8yyn6yn.fsf@gnu.org \
--to=eliz@gnu.org \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=jan.kratochvil@redhat.com \
--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).