From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28109 invoked by alias); 28 May 2008 22:24:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 28099 invoked by uid 22791); 28 May 2008 22:24:02 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from viper.snap.net.nz (HELO viper.snap.net.nz) (202.37.101.25) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 28 May 2008 22:23:30 +0000 Received: from kahikatea.snap.net.nz (95.63.255.123.dynamic.snap.net.nz [123.255.63.95]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id C18793DA7ED; Thu, 29 May 2008 10:23:20 +1200 (NZST) Received: by kahikatea.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5F0E98FC6D; Thu, 29 May 2008 10:23:15 +1200 (NZST) From: Nick Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <18493.56145.992962.378470@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 12:01:00 -0000 To: Vladimir Prus Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH:MI] Return a subset of a variable object's children In-Reply-To: <200805281122.52651.vladimir@codesourcery.com> References: <18452.24568.655617.907458@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <18457.46138.681282.588777@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <18469.3657.466721.123119@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <200805281122.52651.vladimir@codesourcery.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 22.2.50.2 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: 2008-05/txt/msg00745.txt.bz2 > I think that the current data structures surely allow to implement the > behaviour that is useful for frontends. I raise some questions about the > original version of your patch in > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gdb.patches/40676 > > which you did not respond to. Did you miss that email? I think these question were addressed in subsequent e-mails. 1) I now post patches in unified diff format. 2) I explained why I thought the stride was useful, e.g., (http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-04/msg00680.html) 3) I acknowledged that the children should be reported in order (http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-04/msg00675.html) and my last patch did this using linked lists. > Do you plan to have > the original version of your patch adjusted and checked in? No. I couldn't get it to report the additional children/update in the correct order using vectors. > For the record, the usecases that I think will benefit from this new > functionality are outlined in: > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gdb.patches/40726 I think the use cases are more extensive but I don't currently have any user feedback to back up that assertion. -- Nick http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob