From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-47597-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 8128 invoked by alias); 9 Feb 2007 02:21:07 -0000
Received: (qmail 8119 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Feb 2007 02:21:06 -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, 09 Feb 2007 02:20:55 +0000
Received: from kahikatea.snap.net.nz (145.62.255.123.dynamic.snap.net.nz [123.255.62.145]) 	by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 068573DA695; 	Fri,  9 Feb 2007 15:20:53 +1300 (NZDT)
Received: by kahikatea.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 500) 	id 5CCA04F704; Fri,  9 Feb 2007 15:20:50 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <17867.55937.642747.250390@kahikatea.snap.net.nz>
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 02:21:00 -0000
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Catch errors in value_get_print_value
In-Reply-To: <20070208222519.GA2611@nevyn.them.org>
References: <17858.21211.33629.685339@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> 	<20070208174131.GC13544@nevyn.them.org> 	<17867.41420.663991.707406@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> 	<20070208222519.GA2611@nevyn.them.org>
X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 22.0.93.8
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2007-02/txt/msg00117.txt.bz2

 > > It's much quieter than a window full of error/warning messages.  If
 > > there's no value available, the frontend doesn't show one.  That seems
 > > logical to me but perhaps only because I'm used to it.
 > 
 > Well, maybe we could use in_scope="false" and no value, and let the
 > front end decide...

But the variable may be in scope and the frontend wouldn't be able to
distinguish between this case and when the variable really was out of
scope.  Maybe another value e.g in_scope="unreadable" would work.

Re your patch:

  if (initial && changeable)
    ...
  else if (changeable)
    ...

Isn't:

if (changeable)
  {
    if (initial)
      ...
    else
      ...
  }

easier to read?


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