This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: guile scripting for gdb
- From: Doug Evans <dje at sebabeach dot org>
- To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo at gnu dot org>
- Cc: guile-user at gnu dot org, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 12:33:28 -0800
- Subject: Re: guile scripting for gdb
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAA8o+=QH-gHc2GoUadfhOO4hj0=mxRbC6u0CDijAsYRvWpzvyw at mail dot gmail dot com> <87ob5vlr2s dot fsf at gnu dot org> <CAA8o+=Qhwj720CtfhUF=JuLs-GJ455uZ7gsRRripc=4vZDFWng at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Doug Evans <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> As discussed on IRC, one possible issue is eq?-ness of SMOBs: one would
>> usually expects pointer equality to be preserved at the Scheme level.
> That'll require gdb maintaining its own table(s) for each kind of smob
> we want to intern.
Actually, to be more precise, it will require maintaining tables for
*some* smobs we want to intern.
For other smobs the cost of caching the SCM in the gdb object isn't onerous.
[The object is marked as protected from GC until the gdb object is deleted.]
Alas, for two of the more important smobs we'd want to eq?, I think,
gdb symbols and types, we'll need separate tables.
Minimizing space usage of their gdb structs is important (critical
even), and only a small fraction of them will typically be used in
And we certainly don't want to pay that expense when Scheme isn't used.