From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23629 invoked by alias); 19 Apr 2010 22:00:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 23607 invoked by uid 48); 19 Apr 2010 22:00:07 -0000 Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:00:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100419220007.23606.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "tromey at redhat dot com" To: gdb-prs@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <20100409172931.11482.michel.metzger@st.com> References: <20100409172931.11482.michel.metzger@st.com> Reply-To: sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug python/11482] Side effect of set print address on python API X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC Mailing-List: contact gdb-prs-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-prs-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-q2/txt/msg00135.txt.bz2 ------- Additional Comments From tromey at redhat dot com 2010-04-19 22:00 ------- (In reply to comment #12) > The second thing that comes to mind is why isn't gdb.Value hashable? Should it > be? If so, can we do it and is it desirable to do so? The problem is that the contents of struct value are mutable. It isn't clear what you could hash on, except object identity. Maybe that is good enough. -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11482 ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.