From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20905 invoked by alias); 3 Jan 2007 22:39:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 20603 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Jan 2007 22:39:26 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Wed, 03 Jan 2007 22:39:22 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H2ElU-00077G-Ds; Wed, 03 Jan 2007 17:39:20 -0500 Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 22:39:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Vladimir Prus Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: -var-info-path-expression Message-ID: <20070103223920.GN17935@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Vladimir Prus , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200612251200.42622.ghost@cs.msu.su> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200612251200.42622.ghost@cs.msu.su> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2007-01/txt/msg00089.txt.bz2 On Mon, Dec 25, 2006 at 12:00:42PM +0300, Vladimir Prus wrote: > > This patch implements new MI command, -var-info-path-expression, > that, given a variable object, returns full expression that corresponds > to it. Both KDevelop and Eclipse have now code that guesses such > full expression, and that code is rather hacky, and not exactly correct. > > Moreover, as soon as MI is taught to get the true type > polymorphic C++ objects and display fields of the real type, such full expression > cannot be computed in frontend at all. > > The essence of this patch -- which expressions are returned in which cases -- are > ported without change from the Apple branch. The code structure is much > different though -- this patch capitalizes on MI refactoring patches I've posted > recently. > > This is lightly tested by hand, I'll write automated tests later. There's no docs > either -- again, will be written after discussion. > > There is a couple of issues with this patch: > > - I don't much like 'var-info-path-expression' name, but > naming of MI commands is not very important. True - I think it's fine. > - I'm not sure why we can't report full expression in the > output of -var-list-children. The code I have does not seem > very computationally expensive. Also true. If this would be more useful, I'd be happy to do it that way - would you still need -var-info-path-expression? Having digested the patch, it looks generally OK. I didn't really proofread it; I'll save that until there's some docs and tests, and the earlier patches are in. Sorry, too much at once for me. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery