Re: Variable objects laziness

[Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>]

On Wednesday 29 November 2006 16:44, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> 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.

Done.

> 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...

I know.

> > 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, 

You meant address?

> but only update if the contents 
> change; is that going to be a real pain to implement?

Well, this might end up tricky, so I'd rather take "V" in IMVHO to mean that 
the patch is ok even without this change.

- Volodya