From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14170 invoked by alias); 2 Jul 2010 10:57:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 14158 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Jul 2010 10:57:45 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de (HELO einhorn.in-berlin.de) (192.109.42.8) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 02 Jul 2010 10:57:44 +0000 X-Envelope-From: doko@ubuntu.com Received: from [192.168.42.17] (dslb-088-073-114-080.pools.arcor-ip.net [88.73.114.80]) (authenticated bits=0) by einhorn.in-berlin.de (8.13.6/8.13.6/Debian-1) with ESMTP id o62AvILc024867; Fri, 2 Jul 2010 12:57:18 +0200 Message-ID: <4C2DC60B.3010003@ubuntu.com> Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2010 10:57:00 -0000 From: Matthias Klose User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100423 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tromey@redhat.com CC: asmwarrior , gdb@sourceware.org, libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: About the "info locals" command of gdb and python pretty printer References: <4C21FCDC.5050503__12891.7291098789$1277296251$gmane$org@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-07/txt/msg00005.txt.bz2 On 23.06.2010 22:28, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> ">" == Asm gmail writes: > >>> 1, It seems the current SVN std python script didn't works any >>> more. > [...] >>> All the response from gdb just gives the same as print /r XXXX. > > I think this is pretty unlikely to have been caused by the recent patch. > Instead it sounds like the printers aren't being read in. > > What version of Python are you using? > >>> Today, I have build gdb-cvs-20100623 , and try to make gdb crash on >>> printing some uninitialized stl containers by pretty printers. But it >>> stands through all the cases, so, it seems the gdb-cvs-20100623 is >>> quite stable than the gdb-cvs-20100619. I'm not sure what has >>> changed. It seems it more stable now. > > As far as I know, nothing in this area has changed. my mistake. I did check in two chunks left over from testing. Reverted these on the trunk. The 4.5 branch was not affected. Sorry. Matthias