Re: MI: fix base members in references

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

 > > How should this behave if parent->value is a reference to a pointer?
 > > Shouldn't it follow the ref, and then behave the same as when it's a
 > > pointer?  If so, then the fix would be something like this instead
 > > (not that I understand this code):

More generally variable objects still don't seem to work (even with
Vladimir's yet to be committed patch) for references to pointers.

Assuming that the test program below makes sense, a variable object for n1
has a value which includes the address and reports the value has changed
(as it used to do for pure references)

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


int main ()
{
  int *n;
  int *&n1 = n;
  n = new int;
  *n = 1;
}

The initial program I tested with was a variation of Vladimir's


struct S { int i; int j; };

int main()
{
	S *s;
	S *&s1 = s;
	s = new S;
	s->i = 1;
	s->j = 2;
}

The variable object for s1 didn't behave correctly.