Re: MI: fix base members in references

Nick Roberts
2006-12-09T21:50:17Z

> > > I would have preferred if instead of adding if, the code was modified to
> > > look at
> >
> > > value_type (var->value)
> >
> > > as opposed to
> >
> > > var->type
> >
> > I'm not sure that I follow your point. The patch just gets the target
> > type, after dereferencing, in the case of a pointer.
> >
> > > The latter is the type of the varobj expression as it is in source
> > > program. The former is the value we're actually showing. It makes sense
> > > to use value_type (var->value) for all presentation purposes.
> >
> > The former appears to be a type also (not a value).
>
> Slight typo: the former is the type of the value we're actually showing. So,
> you don't need to take original type and try to arrived to the type that
> should be shown to the user, you just use value_type (var->value), and don't
> need any further processing. One less thing that can be broken in future.

I'm still not sure that I follow. My patch doesn't look at var->type directly.
Are you saying get_type should use value_type (var->value) instead of
var->type? Or even all occurrances of var->type? This would presumably be a
separate patch altogether.

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