From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9329 invoked by alias); 17 Mar 2006 19:37:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 9318 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Mar 2006 19:37:07 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 19:37:06 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FKKkw-00056J-Ne; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:37:02 -0500 Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 01:26:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Vladimir Prus Cc: Nick Roberts , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Remove type prefix for -var-evaluate-expression/functions Message-ID: <20060317193702.GC19068@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Vladimir Prus , Nick Roberts , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <17434.35140.456146.649459@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <200603171319.55381.ghost@cs.msu.su> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200603171319.55381.ghost@cs.msu.su> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-03/txt/msg00232.txt.bz2 On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 01:19:54PM +0300, Vladimir Prus wrote: > On Friday 17 March 2006 13:02, Nick Roberts wrote: > > > > > the following patch removes 'type prefix' from output of > > > > > -var-evaluate-expression applied to objects of function type (not > > > > > pointers to functions, but functions). > > > > > > > > > > It causes no regression in the testsuite for me. > > > > > > > > But I guess a new test would help prevent a regression (in the code) in > > > > the future. > > > > > > Yes, can you suggest which file should I add this new testcase too? > > > > Well I guess mi-var-cmd.exp. Please remember that I'm not the maintainer > > but just an interested party. See what Daniel says. He might want > > something for mi2-var-cmd.exp too. > > Ok, I'll wait for his comment. mi-var-cmd.exp sounds good to me. I don't think we need it in mi2-var-cmd.exp. I have the same question I asked a moment ago about Nick's patch - is there any chance that someone relies on this information? Here I think the chance is pretty slim; for pointers it's a more serious concern, but for functions this is a pretty rare case. So not versioning this change makes sense to me. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery