From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3644 invoked by alias); 9 Dec 2006 21:27:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 3632 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Dec 2006 21:27:05 -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; Sat, 09 Dec 2006 21:26:49 +0000 Received: from kahikatea.snap.net.nz (p202-124-120-4.snap.net.nz [202.124.120.4]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D00E3DA450; Sun, 10 Dec 2006 10:27:53 +1300 (NZDT) Received: by kahikatea.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 500) id AF38FBE3F2; Sun, 10 Dec 2006 10:22:19 +1300 (NZDT) From: Nick Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17787.10504.215397.177658@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 21:27:00 -0000 To: Vladimir Prus Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: MI: fix base members in references X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 22.0.91.14 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-12/txt/msg00142.txt.bz2 > > The patch below seems to fix it for me. Its a diff on 1.63 _with_ your > > yet to be committed changes. > 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). > > Since we have been the only two people directly contributing to for a > > while now MI, and as it would stop the patches piling up, perhaps Vladimir > > (if > > interested) > I don't very well understand maintainership structure in gdb, but I would > surely appreciate a permission to commit MI patches directly. Well it also carries the responsibility of reviewing other peoples patches :-) -- Nick http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob