On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 6:18 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> I've committed the v5 patch to trunk now.
Thanks a lot.
> It would be nice to address Tom's comment at some future time, so we
> only have one entry point in the hook.in file.
I will do it before I add more xmethods.
Thanks,
Siva Chandr
On 04/09/14 05:56 -0700, Siva Chandra wrote:
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Siva Chandra wrote:
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
I was waiting to see which version of the patch actually works, so
that users can use the xmethods. There's no point committing the patch
if
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Siva Chandra wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> I was waiting to see which version of the patch actually works, so
>> that users can use the xmethods. There's no point committing the patch
>> if they aren't installed and can't be use
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> I was waiting to see which version of the patch actually works, so
> that users can use the xmethods. There's no point committing the patch
> if they aren't installed and can't be used!
Doesn't the latest version of the patch I posted work
On 03/09/14 11:01 -0700, Siva Chandra wrote:
Ping. I am not sure if the "OK to ping weekly" applies to GCC patches
as well. I apologize if it has to be longer.
I was waiting to see which version of the patch actually works, so
that users can use the xmethods. There's no point committing the pat
Ping. I am not sure if the "OK to ping weekly" applies to GCC patches
as well. I apologize if it has to be longer.
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 27 August 2014 23:38, Siva Chandra wrote:
>> You are probably already doing it, but just in case: are you using GDB
>> 7.
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Siva> Are you suggesting that in hook.in, we just have single function
> Siva> call like this:
> Siva> register_python_hooks (gdb.current_objfile ())
> Siva> and, this function register_python_hooks lives somewhere else and
> Siva> calls regist
> "Siva" == Siva Chandra writes:
Tom> Yeah, that's my view.
Siva> I am probably not understanding it right again.
It's ok. I am having some trouble myself.
Siva> Are you suggesting that in hook.in, we just have single function
Siva> call like this:
Siva> register_python_hooks (gdb.current
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Siva> My patch is still using a single function to register libstdc++
> Siva> xmethods. Do you mean there should be a single function for pretty
> Siva> printers and xmethods together?
>
> Yeah, that's my view.
I am probably not understanding i
Siva> My patch is still using a single function to register libstdc++
Siva> xmethods. Do you mean there should be a single function for pretty
Siva> printers and xmethods together?
Yeah, that's my view.
Tom
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Siva> I misunderstood then. But, I still do not understand what you mean by
> Siva> "single function".
>
> I re-read my original note, and I think I wasn't very clear. Sorry
> about that.
>
> All I mean here is that I think it's better to have
On 27 August 2014 23:38, Siva Chandra wrote:
> You are probably already doing it, but just in case: are you using GDB
> 7.8 (or later, like ToT) ? You most likely are as otherwise the tests
> added by this patch will not be exercised.
Yes, I'm testing with both 7.8 (where it should work) and an ol
> "Siva" == Siva Chandra writes:
Tom> What I meant was that there should just be a single function called by
Tom> the hook file, and that it should handle the xmethod additions by some
Tom> means as well.
Siva> I misunderstood then. But, I still do not understand what you mean by
Siva> "sing
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> I think I
> did test with the files installed, but they weren't used. I'll test
> again with the new patch.
You are probably already doing it, but just in case: are you using GDB
7.8 (or later, like ToT) ? You most likely are as otherwise
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>> "Siva" == Siva Chandra writes:
>
> Siva> I had something in hook.in in my very first patch but Tom Tromey said
> Siva> it was not required anymore:
> Siva> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-06/msg02405.html
>
> What I meant was that
> "Siva" == Siva Chandra writes:
Siva> I had something in hook.in in my very first patch but Tom Tromey said
Siva> it was not required anymore:
Siva> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-06/msg02405.html
What I meant was that there should just be a single function called by
the hook file,
On 27 August 2014 22:39, Siva Chandra wrote:
> The attached patch addresses Jonathan Wakely's comments on the
> previous version of the patch:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-08/msg02426.html
>
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> Shouldn't there be a change to p
The attached patch addresses Jonathan Wakely's comments on the
previous version of the patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-08/msg02426.html
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Shouldn't there be a change to python/Makefile.am so that xmethods.py
> gets installed
18 matches
Mail list logo
