This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Publishing binary interfaces [was Re: [PATCH] Move "types deeply equal" code from py-type.c to gdbtypes.c]
- From: Doug Evans <dje at sebabeach dot org>
- To: Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink dot net>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 23:22:30 -0800
- Subject: Publishing binary interfaces [was Re: [PATCH] Move "types deeply equal" code from py-type.c to gdbtypes.c]
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAA8o+=Q2ur7dAZYRRgOeRV1=KW_2azOwRY8meVHYKaOx3Yh9GQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <527AB482 dot 80600 at earthlink dot net>
Stan Shebs <email@example.com> writes:
> The comments should be maybe be phrased to emphasize the
> quasi-librariness of the code, so that future generations aren't
> confused if it seems unused by core GDB (which could happen if python
> becomes plugin
> instead of subdir, for example).
While I'm all for publishing gdb as, in part, a collection of libraries,
and thus publishing binary interfaces, one reason why Python was added
the way it was is so that we can make gdb extensible without having to
publish a binary interface (we export some enums to Python, but that's
small potatoes compared to a real binary interface).
Some people IIRC were *profoundly* against publishing binary interfaces.
Is the community changing it's mind on binary interfaces?
Do people actually envision dlopen'ing GDB's Python extension?