This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] Debug Methods in GDB Python
- From: Siva Chandra <sivachandra at google dot com>
- To: Doug Evans <xdje42 at gmail dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 11:24:59 -0800
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Debug Methods in GDB Python
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAGyQ6gxURLZn0bVH0ztDsyqNyNCNsEx-QkJa6OLd0o8u4Vv_Yg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAGyQ6gxe2UiMFJs6LDBxetc9ZDuhHj5uc0HP0Pd=ebqNdJ-_Mg at mail dot gmail dot com> <m3wqjize2h dot fsf at sspiff dot org> <CAGyQ6gyoZdRdXr9PY-ZaO=X1z7v8uj2i_PSzLi-ZMnr=J0LvJQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAP9bCMTDjJ_ZEqhSbZAwGu8CswZJsLu7UrSL5JeY72bb9AO-qQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Siva Chandra <sivachandra@google.com> wrote:
> I have removed DEFAULT_DEBUG_METHOD_GROUP from the code in my latest
> patch. However, there is one reference to it in the brief (really
> brief!) doc change I have in the patch [1]. About grouping in
> libstdc++, is it not doing a grouping within what is facilitated by
> the pretty printing API?
dje > Not sure I understand the question.
libstdc++ pretty printers use the pretty printing API provided by GDB
Python. So, if we are to compare debug methods API to something,
shouldn't we be comparing with the pretty printing API? About the
matching API provided by the debug methods API in my patch, there
isn't anything specific at all. The users can match class name and
method name in whatever manner they please. If they like the libstdc++
pretty printers way, then they can do it that way.