From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15360 invoked by alias); 29 Nov 2006 13:56:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 15350 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Nov 2006 13:56:03 -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 13:55:57 +0000 Received: (qmail 30540 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2006 13:55:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?172.16.64.38?) (vladimir@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 29 Nov 2006 13:55:55 -0000 From: Vladimir Prus To: Nick Roberts , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Variable objects laziness Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 13:56:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 References: <17773.19183.730566.545997@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20061129134447.GA29365@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20061129134447.GA29365@nevyn.them.org> Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200611291655.41760.vladimir@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/msg00382.txt.bz2 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