GDB Focus Group at the 2008 GCC Summit

Thiago Jung Bauermann
Thu Jul 3 14:28:00 GMT 2008

On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 08:34 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 12:26:30AM -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-06-23 at 09:15 -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> > > Our consensus was to use the function-like syntax (second example
> > > above) and to parse the arguments as expressions.  This does mean
> > > there is a namespace issue, but we reasoned that we could make all the
> > > standard functions have a "gdb_" prefix or something like that.
> > 
> > What about using a different symbol, such as '%' instead of the '$' used
> > for convenience variables?
> I'd like them to be convenience variables (which is what Tom has
> implemented).  Putting them in the same namespace is a
> well-established tradition and is how Python behaves - plus it lets
> them behave transparently like inferior function pointers, which can
> also be assigned to convenience variables.


> Here's a suggestion: $builtin, like the bash 'builtin' builtin (can't
> believe I just wrote that sentence).  That would let us recover any
> lost functions.  Well, they aren't really built-in, so maybe some
> other name.  The idea of having two names for each, one more
> convenient and the other more robust.  WDYT?

Sounds good to me. If we provide a robust way to get to the Python
function, then IMHO it's not necessary to use a gdb_ prefix and we can
use bare function names. This would make the use of those functions more
Thiago Jung Bauermann
Software Engineer
IBM Linux Technology Center

More information about the Gdb mailing list