This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] Add bp_location to Python interface
> From: Kevin Pouget <kevin.pouget@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 15:50:30 +0100
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, pmuldoon@redhat.com
>
> > In any case, the last 2 sentences sound scary: I could interpret them
> > as meaning I cannot trust the locations at all. ?If that is indeed so,
> > what use are they?
>
> that's already discussed above, but I don't want you to be scared, so
> let me explain what I meant:
> it's not "at any moment", but rather "after any call to GDB's Python
> interface". We may want to say that it's only breakpoint or
> execution-related calls, but _I_ can't ensure that this is true, and
> it 'might' change in the future:
>
> > A @code{gdb.BpLocation} object may be invalidated during
> > any call to @{GDB}'s API for internal reasons (for instance, but not limited to,
> > breakpoint or execution-related mechanisms).
Sounds okay to me. But you don't need "but not limited to", because
"for instance" already says that.
> +Return a tuple containing a sequence of @code{gdb.BpLocation} objects
> +(see below) associated with this breakpoint. A breakpoint with no location
> +is a pending breakpoint (@xref{Set Breaks, , pending breakpoints}).
^^^^^
Still an @xref...
> +any call to @{GDB}'s API for internal reasons (for instance, but not limited to,
^^^^^^
You already know what to fix here...
The documentation parts are OK with those changes.
Thanks.