Re: Variable objects laziness

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

FWIW, I do think this counted as an obvious fix, but it's near the
border indeed.  And, Nick is right; Vladimir, please do add yourself
to MAINTAINERS as write after approval.

On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 10:25:11AM +0300, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> > I think a further call to coerce_array is needed 
> 
> No, please no! Calls to coerce_array is exactly the reason for the other bug
> I'm fixing. This function has a nice property of silently coercing_refs,
> but that property is not documented, not obvious from function name and
> therefore should be considered a bug.

Let's please not change it though.  Too much of GDB expects the current
behavior...

> Attached (references.diff) is the patch that makes gdb sense the changes in
> reference values, and eliminates the address from the output. Any opinions?

IMVHO, we should still print the value, but only update if the contents
change; is that going to be a real pain to implement?
> +      /* If the value has changed, record it, so that next -var-update can
> +	 report this change.  If a variable had a value of '1', we've set it
> +	 to '333' and then set again to '1', when -var-update will report this

"then" rather than "when".  Otherwise patch is fine.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery