From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 115170 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2015 23:25:31 -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 115151 invoked by uid 89); 18 Mar 2015 23:25:30 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-ob0-f173.google.com Received: from mail-ob0-f173.google.com (HELO mail-ob0-f173.google.com) (209.85.214.173) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 23:25:29 +0000 Received: by obcjt1 with SMTP id jt1so22337803obc.2 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:25:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=hLXjUjLGUSoqlseU+IrMHVzDCYBHWbxYySQQmGVSLaM=; b=SrfL6HZvNxGPJXmWiAoiWFP4zhvsTfNCdsN+INEgEDGNh0+tAMMJUWIm/wfbCSX30g ygilal54tGdOWLnQKcWgt71XQXjKhMZa4pzqC4sRDLf4oAcXjHLVw22E+RKDlQccFk6T nKrpg2W4Rb9tJkV9OPCHW0cChXYvfC4b5v8pDYbiC1yJT16ate2MgPh09riuRtKeI1Dq kgYU3+LyiuZRqMPAJs27bsP//SS7Z2eki6ff24ViGB1g5WXCwAQrdZfvOvdO/JZooL40 FnB9M1C7DUxA7x+Oi9CW0seih353dmhVZcmR2guieBxg2hLV5IJHH45Q+x7Hl8mKVzMB 2C/Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmOE6MNP4BJulJuZ2+CNct3sBmeUsrNSzu24QdhrP7GKcY0D0dx5i0ZPf0cjF1t+KspZv78 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.219.215 with SMTP id s206mr55376983oig.114.1426721127540; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:25:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.142.226 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:25:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <21714.40641.510825.30998@ruffy2.mtv.corp.google.com> <54E71694.1080304@redhat.com> <87ioei31uj.fsf@igalia.com> <87d24p19tt.fsf@igalia.com> <54FD7DAA.7010603@redhat.com> <87twxrncld.fsf@igalia.com> <87ioe1dvu2.fsf@igalia.com> <87sid4atms.fsf@igalia.com> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 23:25:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Provide the ability to write the frame unwinder in Python From: Doug Evans To: Alexander Smundak Cc: Andy Wingo , gdb-patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-03/txt/msg00568.txt.bz2 On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Alexander Smundak wrote: > IMHO we reached an agreement on API. > > I would really like the reviewers to express their opinions about the naming > at this point. To summarize: > * We need a name for the entity passed to a sniffer. This entity provides > access to the registers of the frame being sniffed, and has factory methods > to create instances returned by a sniffer. > * We need a name for the entity returned by a sniffer. > * Should the term 'sniffer' be used in the API and documentation describing > implementing frame unwinding in GDB extensions? I'm not sure I'm going to be of much help here. I don't mind "sniffing" as the name of the act of deciding whether a frame as recognized, and I do like "unwinder" as the name of the object doing the sniffing. But then "sniffer" instead of "unwinder" seems fine too. Regarding the result of an unwinder/sniffer, If I approach this from the point of view of what's easy to explain, it feels like the result of an Unwinder is a Frame. Would it make sense to speak of an Unwinder taking an EphemeralFrame as input and returning a Frame as output?