1 Aug 2011 11:49
1 Aug 2011 11:50
Re: [patch] python prompt additions at first prompt.
Phil Muldoon <pmuldoon <at> redhat.com>
2011-08-01 09:50:54 GMT
2011-08-01 09:50:54 GMT
Matt Rice <ratmice <at> gmail.com> writes:
> little bug with the new python prompt stuff, the prompt_hook doesn't
> take effect until the second prompt.
Thanks for doing this. This looks fine to me, apart from one question.
For tests, there are prompt tests in the python.exp file for prompt
substitutions. For passing arguments to GDB at start-up, see usage of
$GDBFLAGS in the testsuite.
> - prompt, otherwise just print the prompt. */
> - if (async_command_editing_p)
> - {
> - int length;
> - char *a_prompt;
> - char *gdb_prompt = get_prompt (0);
> -
> - /* Tell readline what the prompt to display is and what function
> - it will need to call after a whole line is read. This also
> - displays the first prompt. */
> - length = strlen (get_prefix (0))
> - + strlen (gdb_prompt) + strlen (get_suffix(0)) + 1;
> - a_prompt = (char *) alloca (length);
> - strcpy (a_prompt, get_prefix (0));
> - strcat (a_prompt, gdb_prompt);
> - strcat (a_prompt, get_suffix (0));
> - rl_callback_handler_install (a_prompt, input_handler);
> - }
> - else
(Continue reading)
1 Aug 2011 11:57
Re: Patches for building GDB with MinGW
Phil Muldoon <pmuldoon <at> redhat.com>
2011-08-01 09:57:04 GMT
2011-08-01 09:57:04 GMT
Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes: > The second part, about Python initializations, was discussed > in this thread: > > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2011-07/msg00107.html Thanks for doing this. It looks fine to me. With the patch, all the (Python) tests pass ok on Linux based builds too? It's corner-cases like this that sometimes make me think we should revive the gdb-internal manual. Purely because on hosts that contributors do not have access too, will, without diligence continue to fail/bit-rot. Anyway, that is another discussion, probably for another time. ;) > Okay to commit? It looks fine to me, but I am not a maintainer. Cheers Phil
1 Aug 2011 12:05
Re: Query: About process
Phil Muldoon <pmuldoon <at> redhat.com>
2011-08-01 10:05:05 GMT
2011-08-01 10:05:05 GMT
Abhijit Halder <abhijit.k.halder <at> gmail.com> writes: > Hi, > > I am pretty new in this community. Just curious to know whether I will > get any notification if my patch get accepted or rejected. Your patch will get reviewed (by anybody, but normally by a maintainer). They may require changes to the patch. Only a maintainer can grant you approval to commit your patch. The CONTRIBUTE file in the gdb/ source directory gives a good overview. Sometimes, patches can be missed. I generally "ping" patches after a week if no review has been forthcoming. Sometimes the maintainer work-load is very high, so some things get missed/forgotten. It is perfectly acceptable to "ping" a patch after a reasonable time, and you will not be breaking any etiquette by doing so. Finally, questions like this generally go to gdb <at> sourceware.org, and patch discussion about actual patches to gdb-patches <at> sourceware.org. These rules are very loosely applied, so you have done nothing wrong. I just thought this would be a good time to point out the other list! Cheers Phil
1 Aug 2011 12:09
Re: Query: About process
Abhijit Halder <abhijit.k.halder <at> gmail.com>
2011-08-01 10:09:44 GMT
2011-08-01 10:09:44 GMT
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Phil Muldoon <pmuldoon <at> redhat.com> wrote: > Abhijit Halder <abhijit.k.halder <at> gmail.com> writes: > >> Hi, >> >> I am pretty new in this community. Just curious to know whether I will >> get any notification if my patch get accepted or rejected. > > Your patch will get reviewed (by anybody, but normally by a > maintainer). They may require changes to the patch. > > Only a maintainer can grant you approval to commit your patch. The > CONTRIBUTE file in the gdb/ source directory gives a good overview. > > Sometimes, patches can be missed. I generally "ping" patches after a > week if no review has been forthcoming. Sometimes the maintainer > work-load is very high, so some things get missed/forgotten. It is > perfectly acceptable to "ping" a patch after a reasonable time, and you > will not be breaking any etiquette by doing so. > > Finally, questions like this generally go to gdb <at> sourceware.org, and > patch discussion about actual patches to gdb-patches <at> sourceware.org. > These rules are very loosely applied, so you have done nothing wrong. I > just thought this would be a good time to point out the other list! > > Cheers > > Phil >(Continue reading)
1 Aug 2011 16:06
[darwin/committed]: Adjust assertion condition
Tristan Gingold <gingold <at> adacore.com>
2011-08-01 14:06:38 GMT
2011-08-01 14:06:38 GMT
Hi,
this patch relaxes a too strict assertion condition. The failure case is explained in the comment.
Committed on trunk.
Tristan.
2011-08-01 Tristan Gingold <gingold <at> adacore.com>
* darwin-nat.c (darwin_decode_exception_message): Adjust assertion.
Index: darwin-nat.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/darwin-nat.c,v
retrieving revision 1.26
diff -c -r1.26 darwin-nat.c
*** darwin-nat.c 1 Jul 2011 18:36:28 -0000 1.26
--- darwin-nat.c 1 Aug 2011 14:03:45 -0000
***************
*** 615,622 ****
return -1;
*pthread = thread;
/* Finish decoding. */
- gdb_assert (thread->msg_state == DARWIN_RUNNING);
thread->event.header = *hdr;
thread->event.thread_port = thread_port;
thread->event.task_port = task_port;
--- 615,625 ----
(Continue reading)
1 Aug 2011 16:08
Re: [patch] python prompt additions at first prompt.
Matt Rice <ratmice <at> gmail.com>
2011-08-01 14:08:26 GMT
2011-08-01 14:08:26 GMT
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Phil Muldoon <pmuldoon <at> redhat.com> wrote:
> Matt Rice <ratmice <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>> little bug with the new python prompt stuff, the prompt_hook doesn't
>> take effect until the second prompt.
>
> Thanks for doing this. This looks fine to me, apart from one question.
>
> For tests, there are prompt tests in the python.exp file for prompt
> substitutions. For passing arguments to GDB at start-up, see usage of
> $GDBFLAGS in the testsuite.
I'd tried that, but didn't have much luck,
i'll give it another shot.
>> - prompt, otherwise just print the prompt. */
>> - if (async_command_editing_p)
>> - {
>> - int length;
>> - char *a_prompt;
>> - char *gdb_prompt = get_prompt (0);
>> -
>> - /* Tell readline what the prompt to display is and what function
>> - it will need to call after a whole line is read. This also
>> - displays the first prompt. */
>> - length = strlen (get_prefix (0))
>> - + strlen (gdb_prompt) + strlen (get_suffix(0)) + 1;
>> - a_prompt = (char *) alloca (length);
>> - strcpy (a_prompt, get_prefix (0));
>> - strcat (a_prompt, gdb_prompt);
(Continue reading)
1 Aug 2011 16:13
Re: [patch] python prompt additions at first prompt.
Phil Muldoon <pmuldoon <at> redhat.com>
2011-08-01 14:13:02 GMT
2011-08-01 14:13:02 GMT
Matt Rice <ratmice <at> gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Phil Muldoon <pmuldoon <at> redhat.com> wrote: >> Matt Rice <ratmice <at> gmail.com> writes: >> >>> little bug with the new python prompt stuff, the prompt_hook doesn't >>> take effect until the second prompt. >> >> Thanks for doing this. This looks fine to me, apart from one question. >> >> For tests, there are prompt tests in the python.exp file for prompt >> substitutions. For passing arguments to GDB at start-up, see usage of >> $GDBFLAGS in the testsuite. > > I'd tried that, but didn't have much luck, > i'll give it another shot. Look at gdb.base/args.exp You may not be declaring GDBFLAGS as global. >> display_gdb_prompt removes any handler that is present, and then >> installs a handler. As this is the first prompt, the above code does >> not (because there could not have been a handler installed). I think >> attempting to remove a handler that does not exist just results in a >> NOOP, but it is worth checking. I know very little about readline, >> however. So my question is: with GDB's copy of readline, is this okay? > > Yes, the effect of it seems to turn zero's into zero's. > by my reading and valgrind, it seems fine,(Continue reading)
1 Aug 2011 16:24
Re: [patch] Fix for crash printing NaN (PR gdb/13045)
Tom Tromey <tromey <at> redhat.com>
2011-08-01 14:24:59 GMT
2011-08-01 14:24:59 GMT
>>>>> "Paul" == Paul Pluzhnikov <ppluzhnikov <at> google.com> writes: Paul> Attached patch fixes gdb crash in PR 13045, which (AFAICT) has been broken Paul> since forever. Paul> Tested on Linux/x86_64 and Linux/i686 (CC_FOR_TARGET="gcc -m32"); no Paul> regressions. Paul> One thing I am not sure about is whether some platforms will cause Paul> inferior to crash on divide-by-zero (the test will fail on such Paul> platforms). I wouldn't worry about it. If such a platform turns up we can figure out how to fix it then. This patch is ok. Tom
1 Aug 2011 16:34
Re: [patch 2/2] Mostly code cleanup: stack.c: TRY_CATCH simplifications
Tom Tromey <tromey <at> redhat.com>
2011-08-01 14:34:19 GMT
2011-08-01 14:34:19 GMT
>>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil <at> redhat.com> writes: Jan> after [patch 1/2] some constructs become obviously redundant. FWIW, I like both these patches. Jan> This is a "code cleanup" except for the RETURN_MASK_ALL change. I haven't Jan> found any specific reason in the mail thread introducing it and neither any Jan> reason in the current code, IMO it was only a mistake. I looked at it, and I agree. Tom
RSS Feed