Re: MI: fix base members in references

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

 > > > does the code you've added ever does anything?
 > > 
 > > It seems to handle variable objects of references to pointers correctly.
 > > Have you tried it?
 > 
 > I have not been able to follow this discussion, but there needs to be a
 > better level of understanding here.  Vlad's asking "why does this fix
 > the problem" and you're responding "it seems to fix the problem". 
 > Every time I see something like that, I assume the problem is only
 > being fixed by accident - I'm a big believer in understanding causes.

Looking at code is a bit like peeling an onion: when you remove one layer
there's another layer beneath.  Unfortunately I have to work within my
limitations, both temporal and mental, and I was just trying to get Vladimir to
do a sanity check.  It's easier to show code doesn't work than prove it does
and I don't follow his point about using value_type (var->value) instead of
var->type.  Surely if he thinks that there is a simpler/better patch then
the onus is on him to provide it?

 > get_type_deref looks at the type, and if it is a pointer or reference,
 > it dereferences it.  I assume that this is because we want to show the
 > children of pointers to structs and references to structs.  Is that
 > right?

My patch was just for references to pointers.

 > If you want to show the children of the struct given a reference to a
 > pointer to the struct, then it should handle that too.  Sounds like it
 > should check for a reference and _then_ for a pointer, instead of
 > checking at the same time.

I'm not thinking specifically of structs...

 > There are probably some missing calls to check_typedef here, too.  I
 > don't think you can have a typedef to a reference in C++, but you can
 > definitely have a typedef to a pointer, so it would probably be
 > advisable to call check_typedef before checking for TYPE_CODE_PTR.

...or typedefs.

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