Re: RFC: MI - Detecting change of string contents with variable objects

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

 > > Because -var-evaluate-expression uses varobj_get_value so they will always
 > > return the same value?
 > 
 > Then, there are two solutions:

We seem to be agree that the patch does the right thing and are just talking
about implementation details.

 > 1. Make c_value_of_variable and friends accept struct value as opposed to
 > taking struct varobj.

c_value_of_variable, as it's name implies, requires a struct varobj as it's
argument.

 > 2. Extra the part of c_value_of_variable that you've based your function on
 > into a separate function. Make both c_value_of_variable and install_new_value
 > call the new function.

value_get_print_value is quite a small function.  After you've wrapped
some statements in if clauses and worked out how to call them with a
common argument, I can't see that you would gain much.

 > I'm not sure which approach you find better, but I don't think copy-pasting
 > is a solution to anything.

Clearly it is *a* solution, it's just a question of whether it's the *best*
solution in this case.  Anyway, it's not a straight copy-paste (the asserts are
removed, for example).  I think if you look through the code you'll find
numerous examples where one section of code is a slight variation of another.

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