This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFC: add ability to "source" Python code
- From: Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>
- To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- Cc: tromey at redhat dot com, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 17:52:46 -0800
- Subject: Re: RFC: add ability to "source" Python code
- References: <m3hc3520f9.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <uy6whsh8u.fsf@gnu.org>
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> However, I don't think I like the idea of GDB barfing if Python
> support is not compiled in. I think it should simply try to interpret
> the file as GDB scripting commands.
I 3/4 disagree. :-)
In the case of "source -p foo", I disagree. This is new functionality
(*1), and silently (or otherwise) interpreting "source -p foo" as gdb
scripts will lead to subsequent breakage if/when python support does
get compiled in. [That's 1/2 of the 3/4.]
In the case of "source foo.py" I sort of disagree (that's the other 1/4, fwiw).
Technically speaking it's possible that some bloke out there has a
foo.py script that actually is gdb commands, and forcing the script to
be interpreted as python would break that. It's seems really unlikely
though.
Perhaps "source" could/should also take a -g option to force the
script to be interpreted as gdb commands. It mightn't be sufficient
to justify breaking an existing "source foo.py" being interpreted as
gdb commands (though I think it is), but it might be reasonable to add
anyway.
[(*1): And if we're worried about breaking existing usage, do we also
need to worry about someone with a script named "-p foo.gdb"?
bash$ cat ./"-p foo.gdb"
echo this is foo\n
bash$ gdb -quiet
(gdb) source -p foo.gdb
this is foo
(gdb) q
7.0.x-beta$
1/2 :-)]