Re: Variable objects laziness

[Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>]

On Friday 17 November 2006 13:40, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> >  Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > Sorry, you're right!
> > >
> > > When you're ready, please repost.  Might want to finish talking with
> > > Nick first.
>
> As Nick indicated, I'm not sure whether the removal of my_value_equal is
> ok. The whole point of my_value_equal is to check equality of values
> without error()ing out if we can't read a value.  Your replacement code
> doesn't seem to take that possibility into account.  

Are you sure? The code has exactly one place where value is fetched, and it 
does that by the call to gdb_value_fetch_lazy -- that calls value_fetch_lazy 
in a try block. Any errors will be caught and cause the value to be set to 
NULL. 

> Or is it that your new 
> code no longer needs to do this comparison?  If that's the case, do
> watchpoints still work?

Sorry, what watchpoint have to do with this? my_value_equal is not used to 
implement watchpoints -- only var-update and -var-assign.

- Volodya