From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8491 invoked by alias); 29 Nov 2006 09:09:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 8466 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Nov 2006 09:09:27 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:09:20 +0000 Received: (qmail 12822 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2006 09:09:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO 172.16.unknown.plus.ru) (vladimir@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 29 Nov 2006 09:09:18 -0000 From: Vladimir Prus To: Nick Roberts Subject: Re: Variable objects laziness Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:09:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <17773.19183.730566.545997@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> In-Reply-To: <17773.19183.730566.545997@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200611291209.06573.vladimir@codesourcery.com> 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: 2006-11/txt/msg00372.txt.bz2 On Wednesday 29 November 2006 11:55, Nick Roberts wrote: > > > With the new changes to varobj.c, -var-assign doesn't work for > > > references. > > > > This is embarrassing. However, it also validates my claim that we should > > a single invariant-preserving function to assign new value. This crash > > happens, for all appearances, because varobj_set_value directly sets new > > value. > > > > I've checked in the attached, that fixes the crash, and causes no > > regressions. > > I find this way works well but it's not how things are done here. You need > to post the patch first and get approval from an appropriate maintainer > _before_ committing it (I don't think your change counts as an obvious > fix). See the MAINTAINERS file. I'm assuming that you have Write After > Approval (clearly you have write access) but AFAICS you've not added your > name to MAINTAINERS. I apologise if I've bypassed the procedures. I this case, however, this was a rather serious regression caused by immediately preceding patch of mine. > > Anyway the patch does indeed seem to do what you say. Thanks. > > > Attached (references.diff) is the patch that makes gdb sense the changes > > in reference values, and eliminates the address from the output. Any > > opinions? > > Doesn't appear to be attached but I'm only reading the archives. I'll post it separately in a second -- with a testcase. > If you > reply to an e-mail from me on gdb-patches could you please include me as > I'm not subscribed to the mailing list (I'd rather receive two than none > anyway). I think that's general accepted protocol. Alas, I'm also not subscribed and reading the list via gmane.org and my NNTP reader does not provide a way to reply both to the list and to the author. Is there any way you can try gmane.org? - Volodya