This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Add debug_function_to_file
- From: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: David Malcolm <dmalcolm at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Tom de Vries <Tom_deVries at mentor dot com>, "gcc-patches at gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 10:35:32 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add debug_function_to_file
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <56C46A70 dot 4070605 at mentor dot com> <CAFiYyc3NS+PCAe3ZLvEwpsZgHD7O65PgkJYRp7UCErPMnKohoA at mail dot gmail dot com> <56C5D52E dot 9040302 at mentor dot com> <CAFiYyc0Wst0xUTsF6tX0XX8WbthNW=kDwZ1wncBJra1RM_WiCw at mail dot gmail dot com> <56C5E0A9 dot 1040900 at mentor dot com> <CAFiYyc3u87bKprL+L-41QKmr=2nPo0OZVn-M5ECXdaVNVr9A4g at mail dot gmail dot com> <56C5E69A dot 20000 at mentor dot com> <56C5FEBB dot 5000805 at mentor dot com> <1455824514 dot 9333 dot 27 dot camel at redhat dot com>
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 8:41 PM, David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-02-18 at 18:26 +0100, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> On 18/02/16 16:43, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> > On 18/02/16 16:27, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > > > > > I would be nice if we could avoid the ${1,2,3} printouts
>> > > > > > and value
>> > > > > > > > > > history
>> > > > > > > > > > assignments, but I'm not sure how to do that.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Using gdb.parse_and_eval does the trick.
>> > > >
>> >
>> > This updated version uses gdb.parse_and_eval, and adds error
>> > handling.
>>
>> And this updated version adds handling different number of arguments,
>> and a help text. I think this could be ready for committing.
>>
>> Is a bootstrap/regtest useful/necessary?
>
> I don't think so; I don't think we have any automated coverage for
> gdb_hooks.py. Presumably you've tested it by hand.
>
> What version of Python do you have embedded in gdb? (IIRC some people
> have Python 2, others Python 3)
>
>> + print ("Too little arguments")
>
> Nit: can you change this to "Not enough arguments".
>
>
>> OK for stage4/stage1?
>
> Looks reasonable to me.
Ok for stage4.
Thanks,
Richard.