From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13981 invoked by alias); 5 Jan 2007 21:54:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 13969 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Jan 2007 21:54:02 -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; Fri, 05 Jan 2007 21:53:52 +0000 Received: from kahikatea.snap.net.nz (p202-124-124-135.snap.net.nz [202.124.124.135]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 755353D84B6; Sat, 6 Jan 2007 10:53:43 +1300 (NZDT) Received: by kahikatea.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 500) id D29A04F6D0; Sat, 6 Jan 2007 10:53:41 +1300 (NZDT) From: Nick Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17822.51428.312664.972742@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 21:54:00 -0000 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Vladimir Prus , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFC: MI - Detecting change of string contents with variable objects In-Reply-To: <20070105144926.GC24554@nevyn.them.org> References: <17798.19683.251190.740216@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <17821.25837.573239.858406@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20070104205039.GH24634@nevyn.them.org> <200701042358.59475.ghost@cs.msu.su> <17821.55336.12928.800849@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20070105144926.GC24554@nevyn.them.org> X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 22.0.92.5 X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2007-01/txt/msg00203.txt.bz2 > > I agree. Below is my latest patch, incorporating some of your > > suggestions. > > This looks fine to me if it's fine with Vlad. > > > gdb_assert (!value_lazy (var->value)); > > ! gdb_assert (!value_lazy (value)); > > ! > > ! if (!value_contents_equal (var->value, value)) > > ! changed = 1; > > Why are you removing the second assert here? Argh! Vladimir had the same question, I thought I'd put it back. I have now. I've also used: strcmp (var->print_value, print_value) != 0 since that method seems to be the norm in varobj.c, and GDB generally. I've committed this change, which you might not like, because I think Vladimir is agreeable to it. Of course, I'll make changes, including reversion, if there are problems. -- Nick http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob