Archive for October, 2008

It’s been a great while since I last posted about Python scripting in GDB, mostly because I’ve been busy coding the feature and getting it ready for upstream.

First of all, I’d like to take the opportunity to encourage people interested in using this feature to experiment with what we have implemented so far. The reason is that if you still can’t do what you want with the current code in the Python branch, we’d love to hear what you miss and implement it. We are working on what is useful for ourselves, and trying to decide what other people would find useful. But it’s not possible to imagine everything that people want to use this for, or even most things. Please refer to this wiki page to learn what currently works, what we plan to implement, and how to grab the code from the Python branch.

Feel free to write to the GDB mailing list or show up in the #gdb IRC channel at Freenode to discuss this work and/or bring your use case to our attention, so that we can support it. I hope that with enough input from prospective users we can ship something that’s immediately useful for most people, and avoid having to jump through hoops later and have to shoehorn something that we forgot to cater for initially, risking breaking scripts out there or ending up with an inconsistent API.

Anyway, back to business: I have just committed the second patch in the Python series! It exports GDB’s value subsystem to Python scripts. Basically, GDB values are objects which represent data in the inferior (GDB jargon for the program being debugged), holding its address in the inferior’s addressspace, its type and so on. See the “Python API” section in the GDB manual if you want to learn more about it (yes, we are even writing documentation for the feature!).

I committed the first patch back in August, but I didn’t mention it here because it didn’t do anything the user would find useful, really. It was just groundwork for the rest (autoconf and Makefile.in changes, a ‘python’ command in GDB which basically does nothing useful, initial documentation…). Still, it was about 1500 lines long (not counting the patch’s context)! This shows how much work it is to integrate Python support in GDB. I almost regret having joined this effort. 🙂

The second patch also doesn’t allow the user to do anything useful yet, unfortunately. But it is noteworthy because it is a base upon which a lot of other Python support code depend upon. Also, it’s the first committed patch which actually exposes something from GDB to Python. It took a while to get this code ready for two reasons: one was that there was a long discussion regarding how the syntax of acessing struct/union/class elements. The other was that implementing the Value class involved playing with little-documented aspects of Python’s C interface, and it took me time to discover how to do what I needed.

Now my next step is to choose the next patch from the Python series to submit upstream, and get it ready for posting (i.e., fix FIXMEs, add testcases and documentation). This brings me to another thing I’d like to mention. Back in April when I first prepared the Python patch series, I naively thought that after cutting them out, it was just a matter of posting them, iterate through a few review/rework steps and they’d be committed. Simple enough. But here we are in mid-October and just two from nine patches went in (now it’s more like 15 patches in total)! What happened?

The problem is that we’ve been working in the branch in an experimental and exploratory way, just hacking together enough to get something useful done. This was necessary because we didn’t know exactly what we would want to expose from GDB to Python, and how we wanted to do that. As we progressed and discussed the results, things started to become clear. The problem is that now we have a lot to clean up, voids to fill, and above all documentation and testcases to write. This takes time.

At least, that was the problem with the first two patches. I noticed Tom Tromey started to write more documentation and tie more loose ends than in the beginning (me? I’ve just been working on the first two patches until they were ready. Didn’t write sexy new stuff since then…), so there’s hope that the next patches will be easier to work with. We still lack a lot of tests for the testsuite, though…


Read Full Post »