From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30960 invoked by alias); 17 Mar 2006 10:04:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 30952 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Mar 2006 10:04:16 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from viper.snap.net.nz (HELO viper.snap.net.nz) (202.37.101.8) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 10:04:14 +0000 Received: from kahikatea.snap.net.nz (p202-124-114-56.snap.net.nz [202.124.114.56]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 668DE74954E; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 23:04:09 +1300 (NZDT) Received: by kahikatea.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 500) id 8DC3288E8; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 23:02:45 +1300 (NZDT) From: Nick Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17434.35140.456146.649459@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:33:00 -0000 To: Vladimir Prus Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Remove type prefix for -var-evaluate-expression/functions Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-03/txt/msg00223.txt.bz2 > > > the following patch removes 'type prefix' from output of > > > -var-evaluate-expression applied to objects of function type (not > > > pointers to functions, but functions). > > > > > > It causes no regression in the testsuite for me. > > > > But I guess a new test would help prevent a regression (in the code) in > > the future. > > Yes, can you suggest which file should I add this new testcase too? Well I guess mi-var-cmd.exp. Please remember that I'm not the maintainer but just an interested party. See what Daniel says. He might want something for mi2-var-cmd.exp too. > > > + if (TYPE_CODE (type) == TYPE_CODE_FUNC) > > > > This condition must always be true here (case TYPE_CODE_FUNC:). > > This chunk is in 'c_value_print', where there's no switch. Ah yes! I misread the patch. > I guess I'd better send the patch with "-p". It's attached, hopefully it's > more clear. > And thanks for the hint about -p! Hmm...yes, I guess I've proved my own point. -- Nick http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob PS I'm not subscribed to gdb-patches so please include me in your replies. I think its fairly standard to do this as its more inconvenient to get no reply, than get two and have to delete one.