Re: Variable objects laziness

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 01:44:53PM +0300, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> 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. 

I think this is the key bit - my_value_equal called value_fetch_lazy,
the new code calls gdb_value_fetch_lazy.

Vlad, I noticed that the old code used coerce_array and the new one
doesn't.  Is that a problem?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery