GDB section is not up to date

[ogrisel]

The section about configuring gdb to enable python-aware debugging does not seem up to date:

• https://devguide.python.org/advanced-tools/gdb

In particular it assumes that there exists a file named python-gdb.py at the root of a checkout of the CPython source tree and that it is therefore enough to add add-auto-load-safe-path /path/to/checkout to the $HOME/.gdbinit file to get the py-bt command working for instance.

However, I cannot locate the python-gdb.py file in the cpython repo. Instead I found:

• https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/main/Tools/gdb/libpython.py

so I assume, that the correct way to enable the python specific commands is to do:

gdb python --args my_python_script.py
source /path/to/cpython/Tools/gdb/libpython.py

or maybe, the Tools/gdb/libpython.py file should be symlinked as python-gdb.py somewhere and then add the add-auto-load-safe-path directive pointing to the parent folder of the symlink for gdb to automatically load it (but apparently this does not seem to work).

I am not familiar enough with gdb to know how to fix the documentation.

[CAM-Gerlach]

Thanks for the detailed report, and sorry for the trouble! I've pinged our GDB subject matter experts to take a look at this and recommend what to do about it.

[ogrisel]

Note: maybe turning the filename(s) into links would make it possible to automatically detect such problems in the future (as done in #1003).

[markshannon]

When building CPython with make, python-gdb.py will be installed for you.
If you are debugging a CPython that you haven't built yourself, just copy /Tools/gdb/libpython.py to python-gdb.py.

[carljm]

Specifically, see the gdbhooks target in the Makefile, which is a dependency of the default target.

[CAM-Gerlach]

I see the docs do currently imply this:

When CPython is built you will notice a python-gdb.py file in the root directory of your checkout.

Perhaps it could use a brief note or a more explicit mention, though, if users are getting confused here?

[carljm]

Perhaps it could use a brief note or a more explicit mention, though, if users are getting confused here?

I wouldn't stand in the way, but personally I'd wait for n>1 before spending time on that.