From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15809 invoked by alias); 3 Jan 2012 19:50:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 15798 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Jan 2012 19:50:24 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Jan 2012 19:50:05 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q03Jo3Qj017369 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 3 Jan 2012 14:50:04 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q03Jo3pN002711; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 14:50:03 -0500 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q03Jo295017150; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 14:50:02 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Doug Evans Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, iant@google.com, Keith Seitz Subject: Re: [RFC] Initial pass at supporting the Go language References: <20111228210206.B6B762461C9@ruffy.mtv.corp.google.com> Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 19:50:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Doug Evans's message of "Tue, 3 Jan 2012 10:12:11 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.92 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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: 2012-01/txt/msg00108.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Doug" == Doug Evans writes: Tom> I think this over-exposes some buildsym details to dwarf2read. Doug> Sigh. Doug> This is what I get for monkey-see-monkey-do hacking. Doug> You can't trust any part of gdb to be what the powers-that-be find acceptable. Doug> [The code in question is far from rare, and any details are certainly Doug> not protected in a way that imposes or even suggests a proper API. A Doug> day I continue to wish for btw.] I don't insist on changing this. In fact I thought it was reasonably clear that I was approaching it as a tradeoff between ugly alternatives. I grepped the tree looking for similar uses of struct pending, and didn't find any. Tom> What is the problem here? Doug> The choice of what encoding to use is, ultimately, a property of the Doug> thing you are printing, not any global state. Plus Go generally uses Doug> utf8; I wasn't willing to have the Go support change the target Doug> encoding. It seems to me that if a Go string is UTF-8, then it is friendliest to the user to print it as such. After all, you're already doing other Go-specific decoding here. If the user really needs to see the details, he can "set lang c" and see the underlying representation. That said, I don't mind either way here, either. I don't actually know much about Go. Tom