Re: Variable objects laziness

[Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz>]

> > With the new changes to varobj.c, -var-assign doesn't work for references.

> This is embarrassing. However, it also validates my claim that we should a
> single invariant-preserving function to assign new value. This crash
> happens, for all appearances, because varobj_set_value directly sets new
> value.

> I've checked in the attached, that fixes the crash, and causes no
> regressions.

I find this way works well but it's not how things are done here.  You need to
post the patch first and get approval from an appropriate maintainer _before_
committing it (I don't think your change counts as an obvious fix).  See the
MAINTAINERS file.  I'm assuming that you have Write After Approval (clearly you
have write access) but AFAICS you've not added your name to MAINTAINERS.

Anyway the patch does indeed seem to do what you say.  Thanks.

> Attached (references.diff) is the patch that makes gdb sense the changes in
> reference values, and eliminates the address from the output. Any opinions?

Doesn't appear to be attached but I'm only reading the archives.  If you
reply to an e-mail from me on gdb-patches could you please include me as I'm
not subscribed to the mailing list (I'd rather receive two than none anyway).
I think that's general accepted protocol.

-- 
Nick                                           http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob